“‘It stinks’ ain’t the law in New Jersey—you have to show an ethical violation.”
That was the key argument Beasley Allen’s attorney Jeffrey M. Pollock brought to a New Jersey state court Tuesday in his attempt to convince the judges that the Alabama-based trial firm should be allowed to stay on as co-lead counsel in the massive litigation against Johnson & Johnson over alleged illness from exposure to talc products.
The company urged the Superior Court Appellate Division panel to reverse a lower court ruling finding J&J’s prior bankruptcy lawyer hadn’t “associated” with Beasley Allen despite collaborating with the trial lawyers in a mediation that sought to keep the multi-district litigation and multi-county litigation in New Jersey out of bankruptcy court. At stake: the major plaintiff-side firm’s cut of potentially $22 billion in claims brought by vaginal cancer patients who accused the health-care giant of selling asbestos-tainted talc products.
Judges Mark K. Chase and Thomas W. Sumners Jr. focused on whether the activity of former Sidley Austin attorney James Conlan constituted “association” when he jumped ship from the firm to form a settlement consultancy business called Legacy Liability Solutions, where he worked in a non-lawyer capacity. If interactions Conlan—who worked roughly 1,600 hours on J&J’s bankruptcy for Sidley—had with Beasley Allen could be considered “associating” then they could violate New Jersey Rule 5.3(c) blocking conflicts arising from collaboration between attorneys and non-lawyers with conflicts in litigation.
“If Conlan was acting as an attorney would that have been problematic?” Sumners asked.
“Yes,” said Pollock, managing member of Pollock Law. “But he was not. He was never on the payroll. He was never hired.”
Rules ‘Effecitvely Neutralized’
J&J portrayed this as an easy case, since no one disputes that if Conlan was acting as an attorney there would be a conflict.
While case law doesn’t establish what association means, Conlan’s experience on this specific case is more than sufficient to disqualify Beasley Allen, said Peter G. Verniero, a former New Jersey Supreme Court justice and member at Sills Cummis & Gross PC.
“Our legal system cannot function if a lawyer for one side is permitted to collaborate or partner with lawyers on another side on the same matter involving the same issues and claims,” he said.
This case is one of several efforts to disqualify Beasley Allen in this broader litigation; the parties are awaiting a decision from the US District Court for the District of New Jersey on similar arguments.
Pollock said that there have been hearings, testimony, and wide discovery on the topic, and nowhere has J&J pointed to any confidential information provided to the plaintiffs by Conlan.
When pressed on this point by the judges, Verniero said “if J&J or any former client were required to prove shared confidences then the rules would be effectively neutralized.”
Pollock said that for 20 years the New Jersey courts have refused to disqualify attorneys based off of the “appearance of conflicts.” Parties seeking to kick out opposing firms must come forward with evidence—something he said J&J hasn’t done.
“Otherwise, what you’re saying is, ‘If it looks and smells wrong there must be something wrong,’” Pollock said. “That’s not the law in New Jersey.”
The case is In re Talc-based Powder Products Litigation, N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., No. A-000215-24, oral argument held 1/13/26.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: