The Beasley Allen talcum powder lawsuit practice — the Montgomery, Alabama firm’s representation of women who say Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based Baby Powder caused their ovarian cancer — was upended in 2026 when courts in three jurisdictions disqualified the firm over an ethics violation involving a former J&J attorney. Beasley Allen is appealing, the underlying cases against J&J continue, and clients affected by the disqualification have been told they may retain new counsel.
The Firm’s Talc Cases Against Johnson & Johnson
Beasley Allen has been one of the most prominent plaintiff firms in the talc litigation for more than a decade. Its talc team is led by attorneys Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows, with principal Andy Birchfield overseeing the firm’s mass torts section.{1Beasley Allen. Jere Beasley Report, January 2026} The core allegation is that Johnson & Johnson’s talc products, including its Baby Powder, contained trace amounts of asbestos and that the company failed to warn consumers about a cancer risk.
As of 2025, more than 65,000 women had filed talc-related lawsuits against J&J. Beasley Allen represented roughly 11,500 of those claimants.{2Beasley Allen. Talcum Powder Lawsuit}{3Bloomberg Law. Beasley Allen Disqualified From Nationwide J&J Talc Litigation} J&J pulled its talc-based Baby Powder from U.S. and Canadian markets in May 2020, citing declining demand, and continues to deny that the product is unsafe.
Verdicts the Firm Has Won
Beasley Allen has secured jury verdicts in talc cases that the firm says total more than $724 million. Early wins came in St. Louis: $55 million in Ristesund v. Johnson & Johnson in May 2016, $70 million in Giannecchini v. Johnson & Johnson in October 2016, and $110 million in Slemp v. Johnson & Johnson in April 2017.{4CVN. Case-by-Case Breakdown of All Cosmetic Trials} The firm has also lost cases, including two St. Louis defense verdicts and a hung jury in a 2019 Georgia trial.
The recent results are mixed. In December 2025, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded $40 million to plaintiffs Monica Kent and Deborah Schultz in the first ovarian cancer bellwether trial in California’s coordinated talc proceedings. Kent received $18 million in compensatory damages, Schultz received $13.5 million, and Schultz’s husband Albert received $8.5 million for loss of consortium. The jury declined to award punitive damages, and J&J said it would appeal.{5Legal Newsline. LA Jury Awards $40M in Ovarian Cancer Talc Trial}{6Beasley Allen. $40 Million Verdict Talc Trial Triumph}
Two months later, a Philadelphia jury returned a much smaller $250,000 verdict for the estate of Gayle Emerson, who had used talc-based powders for more than 45 years before her 2015 ovarian cancer diagnosis. The award consisted of $50,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. A family representative called it “less than we hoped, and significantly less than the amount necessary to punish J&J.” It was the first Philadelphia talc plaintiff’s verdict in five years, as J&J’s bankruptcy filings had frozen the litigation for much of that period.{7Mesothelioma.net. Philadelphia Jury Awards $250,000 in Talc Ovarian Cancer Case}
Why Beasley Allen Was Disqualified in 2026
The event that changed Beasley Allen’s role in the litigation involved James Conlan, a restructuring attorney who had served as outside counsel to Johnson & Johnson on the talc cases from July 2020 through March 2022 while at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath. During that period, he billed 1,600 hours and $2.24 million and played what courts later described as a “pivotal role” in J&J’s defense strategy, including settlement analysis and bankruptcy planning.{8New Jersey Courts. In re Talc Based Powder Products Litigation, A-0215-24}
After leaving Faegre, Conlan founded Legacy Liability Solutions, a company promoting a corporate liability separation concept. Beginning in about April or May 2023, while J&J’s second bankruptcy was still pending, Conlan and Beasley Allen’s Andy Birchfield began communicating regularly. Beasley Allen shared confidential work product with Conlan and Legacy, including an “ovarian cancer leadership memo” containing case values, injury data, and damages analyses. In June 2023, Conlan participated alongside Beasley Allen in a bankruptcy mediation session. Neither side disclosed the collaboration to Johnson & Johnson.{8New Jersey Courts. In re Talc Based Powder Products Litigation, A-0215-24}
Birchfield later testified that it “never crossed his mind” to tell J&J about the meetings because he viewed Conlan’s company as “a vendor.” He also acknowledged knowing since 2020 that Conlan had represented J&J, and that he could not have hired Conlan as a lawyer to work on the talc cases without a conflict waiver.{8New Jersey Courts. In re Talc Based Powder Products Litigation, A-0215-24}
Where the Disqualification Applies
The Conlan collaboration produced disqualification orders in three forums.
New Jersey State Court
On February 6, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had allowed Beasley Allen to remain in the litigation. The appellate court found that by collaborating with Conlan on the “same matter” he had handled for J&J, Beasley Allen violated New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(a), which governs duties to former clients, and RPC 5.3, which covers responsibilities for nonlawyer assistants. The ruling removed the firm from approximately 3,600 state court talc cases, though it remanded for further consideration of whether “extraordinary circumstances” might permit some continued participation.{8New Jersey Courts. In re Talc Based Powder Products Litigation, A-0215-24}{9Legal Newsline. Beasley Allen Facing DQ From Talc Cases Can’t Push Pause} The New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear the firm’s appeal on April 10, 2026, leaving the disqualification in place.{10Bloomberg Tax. NJ Justices Reject Beasley Allen Plea to Reenter J&J Talc Cases}
Federal Multidistrict Litigation
On March 26, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh disqualified Beasley Allen from the federal talc MDL and removed it from the plaintiffs’ steering committee. The order barred the firm from representing approximately 5,500 women in the consolidated litigation.{11Bailey Glasser (WSJ reprint). Johnson & Johnson Bankruptcy Foe Ousted in Talc Litigation} Judge Singh wrote that “personal antagonism and poor choices render Beasley Allen’s continued leadership problematic.”{12Judicial Hellholes. Federal Judge Calls Out Beasley Allen’s Poor Choices in Talc Litigation}
Because many of the affected clients have joint representation with other attorneys, Judge Singh noted those lawyers could continue the cases. The firm was required to notify all clients of the disqualification and their right to retain new counsel.{3Bloomberg Law. Beasley Allen Disqualified From Nationwide J&J Talc Litigation}
Philadelphia
On April 20, 2026, a Philadelphia state court judge revoked the pro hac vice admissions of Beasley Allen attorneys in the J&J talc mass tort, finding the admissions “inappropriate” given the firm’s dealings with Conlan. The ruling affected the firm’s participation in at least nine Philadelphia cases.{13Law360. Beasley Allen Pro Hac Vice Revoked in Philly J&J Talc Cases}
The Client Consent and Co-Counsel Disputes
Two other disputes surfaced alongside the Conlan matter. In September 2024, Beasley Allen sued its former joint venture partner, The Smith Law Firm, in Alabama federal court. The two firms had collaborated since 2014 to represent roughly 11,000 to 12,000 talc claimants. The relationship fell apart when Smith Law Firm principal Allen Smith decided to support a proposed J&J bankruptcy settlement that Beasley Allen was fighting. Beasley Allen alleged Smith owed $1.16 million in unpaid litigation expenses, that he breached their agreement by soliciting client votes for the bankruptcy plan, and that he owed roughly $240 million to litigation funders. Smith called the lawsuit “baseless” and “petty.”{14Reuters. J&J’s Proposed Talc Settlement Sparks Lawsuit Between Plaintiffs Firms}{15Law.com. Beasley Allen Sues Co-Counsel Allen Smith for Supporting J&J’s Talc Settlement}
In February 2026, a former Beasley Allen client named Aletha Wilson filed a declaration in federal court alleging the firm had voted against J&J’s approximately $9 billion bankruptcy plan on behalf of about 11,500 clients without their explicit consent. Wilson said the firm later asked her to sign a retroactive power of attorney, which she described as an “innocuous prophylactic measure” that in fact contained language designed to authorize the firm’s earlier actions. Wilson, whose uterine cancer claim might not survive scientific scrutiny at trial, said she would have preferred to accept the settlement.{16Legal Newsline. Ex-Client Accuses Beasley Allen of Shady Talc Contract Moves for DQ} Judge Singh referenced the consent issue in her March 2026 ruling, noting that records indicated the firm voted against the bankruptcy plan on behalf of 8,000 clients who had never explicitly stated their position.{17Legal Newsline. Antagonism and Poor Choices: Beasley Allen Booted Off Talc Cases}
What the Firm Says and What Happens to Clients Now
Beasley Allen, Birchfield, and Conlan have denied J&J’s characterization of their interactions, maintaining in court filings that the firm never employed Conlan as a lawyer.{11Bailey Glasser (WSJ reprint). Johnson & Johnson Bankruptcy Foe Ousted in Talc Litigation} Managing partner Tom Methvin said the firm is “confident in our position” and called the disqualification push “an aggressive litigation tactic” to avoid accountability.{3Bloomberg Law. Beasley Allen Disqualified From Nationwide J&J Talc Litigation} The firm is appealing Judge Singh’s federal disqualification order.
For clients, the practical picture is this. Many Beasley Allen clients had joint representation with other plaintiff firms, and those attorneys can continue the cases in the federal MDL and elsewhere. Clients whose representation was solely through Beasley Allen have been told they may retain new counsel. The underlying litigation against Johnson & Johnson is not stopping: the MDL contains roughly 67,000 to 70,000 cases before Judge Michael A. Shipp in New Jersey. The first federal bellwether trial, Judkins v. Johnson & Johnson, involves a New Hampshire woman who alleges decades of talc use caused her ovarian cancer; it was selected in July 2025 and was awaiting resolution of scientific admissibility motions as of early 2026.{18Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Lawsuits}{19GovInfo. Carter Judkins v. Johnson & Johnson, MDL 2738} J&J has said it does not currently intend to offer any settlements and plans to defend the remaining claims at trial.{}