J-M Manufacturing, a Los Angeles-based plastic pipe company, filed a federal RICO lawsuit against the Gori law firm on January 28, 2026. The lawsuit accuses the plaintiff firm of fraud in asbestos litigation. This follows a pattern of asbestos defendants suing plaintiff attorneys, a tactic that has historically been used to discourage legitimate claims.
This is a legal dispute between corporations and law firms. It should not discourage people with legitimate mesothelioma diagnoses from seeking legal help. Juries continue to award billions to people affected by asbestos when cases go to trial.
The Background on J-M Manufacturing
J-M Manufacturing acquired pipe manufacturing operations from Johns-Manville Corporation in 1982, after Johns-Manville filed for bankruptcy due to asbestos liabilities. The company supplied asbestos-cement pipe from 1983 to 1988.
Key facts about J-M:
- Has faced over 6,000 asbestos lawsuits since 2000
- Lost a $22.2 million verdict in Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing (2018)
- Previously sued its own defense lawyers for being “too willing to settle”
- Has filed similar lawsuits against Simmons Hanly Conroy and Sokolove Law
The Allegations
J-M’s lawsuit alleges:
- Attorneys filed claims without adequate investigation
- Pre-drafted affidavits were used
- Cases were filed to create settlement leverage
The Gori firm responded by calling the claims “ridiculous” and characterizing the lawsuit as “scare tactics” by “an asbestos company.”
Historical Context: The Garlock Playbook
This is not the first time asbestos defendants have used RICO lawsuits against plaintiff firms. In 2014, Garlock Sealing Technologies filed similar RICO claims against four plaintiff law firms.
| Year | What Happened |
|---|---|
| 2014 | Garlock files RICO lawsuits against four plaintiff firms |
| 2015 | Plaintiff firms file counterclaims |
| 2016 | Garlock drops all RICO claims as part of settlement |
The Garlock case settled for $480 million (compared to the $1.26 billion plaintiffs originally sought), and all RICO claims were abandoned.
What Defense Advocates Argue
Defense-side organizations have long pushed for “asbestos trust transparency” legislation, arguing that some plaintiff firms file inconsistent claims with different defendants and bankruptcy trusts.
What Plaintiff Advocates Counter
Plaintiff attorneys argue these transparency proposals are designed to delay litigation and deter legitimate claims. They note:
- High dismissal rates are normal in asbestos cases, which typically name many defendants and narrow during discovery
- Defense data shows cases average 38 defendants initially, with half dismissed as exposure histories clarify
- This reflects normal legal procedure, not fraud
The Real Story: Juries Still Hold Companies Accountable
While defendants pursue these legal strategies, juries continue to find for plaintiffs in asbestos cases:
| Date | Verdict | Defendant |
|---|---|---|
| December 2025 | $1.56 billion | Johnson & Johnson |
| October 2025 | $966 million | Johnson & Johnson |
| 2025 | $33 million | John Crane |
| 2025 | $18 million | Various (brake dust case) |
Average mesothelioma settlements remain between $1 million and $1.4 million. Over $30 billion remains in asbestos trust funds for victims.
What People With Mesothelioma Should Know
-
These allegations are unproven. They are claims in a lawsuit, not established facts.
-
The company has its own incentives. J-M bought asbestos pipe operations knowing the liability history and has lost major verdicts at trial.
-
Legal options remain. The vast majority of mesothelioma cases involve genuine exposure histories and result in compensation for real victims.
-
Consult qualified attorneys. People diagnosed with mesothelioma should discuss their options with experienced asbestos litigation attorneys, regardless of this corporate legal dispute.
Is J-M Manufacturing an asbestos defendant?▼
Yes. J-M is a liable party in asbestos litigation. The company acquired asbestos pipe operations from Johns-Manville in 1982, knowing the liabilities. Courts and juries have found J-M responsible for asbestos injuries.
Has J-M been found liable at trial?▼
Yes. J-M lost a $22.2 million verdict in Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing in 2018. The company has faced over 6,000 asbestos lawsuits since 2000.
Why is a liable defendant suing plaintiff law firms?▼
J-M has filed RICO lawsuits against multiple firms and even sued its own defense lawyers for being “too willing to settle.” This pattern of suing everyone involved in litigation against the company raises questions about the company’s strategy.
Did Garlock's RICO lawsuits against plaintiff firms succeed?▼
No. Garlock Sealing Technologies filed RICO claims against four plaintiff firms in 2014 but dropped all claims in 2016. The tactic failed.
References
ABA Journal. Gori firm accused of fraud and racketeering in asbestos litigation.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/gori-firm-accused-of-fraud-and-racketeering-in-asbestos-litigation
Legal Newsline. JM Eagle files RICO lawsuit against Gori Law Firm.
https://www.legalnewsline.com/pennsylvania-record/madison-stclair-record/gori-law-firm-faces-fraud-and-racketeering-accusations/article_848d5ea2-85d4-4ab8-898f-f07054b3cce2.html
Reuters. PVC giant JM Eagle revives racketeering case against asbestos law firm.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/pvc-giant-jm-eagle-revives-racketeering-case-against-asbestos-law-firm-2025-11-12/