Attorney John Simmons
CHICAGO — One of America's most prominent asbestos lawsuit firms can't escape a lawsuit accusing them of engineering a fraud and racketeering scheme of "serial sham lawsuits" to rake in settlements for fake or exaggerated asbestos exposure claims on behalf of clients who were allegedly coached to support the alleged false claims in court against companies who may have never harmed them.
On Nov. 6, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman rejected the attempt by the firm of Simmons Hanly Conroy to toss the legal action lodged by Los Angeles-based pipemaker J-M Manufacturing.
In the ruling, Gettleman said J-M had done enough at this point to keep the case in court and to force Simmons Hanly to at least respond to the accusations.
Gettleman specifically ruled the company had presented sufficient evidence to back its claims of "an extensive scheme devised by lawyers and firms to defraud plaintiffs through serial lawsuits based on false testimony and concealed information..."
The judge further ruled that no court precedents automatically require him to disqualify the claims, simply because Simmons Hanly is accused of using lawsuits to allegedly commit the alleged fraud.
In a statement following the ruling, J-M's general counsel Lisa Carteen said the decision importantly recognizes "that litigation conduct is not automatically immune from federal racketeering law when it is part of a scheme built on false testimony and concealed evidence."
"Our fight is about restoring integrity to asbestos litigation, so that compensation goes to the people who were truly harmed," Carteen added.
The case is part of a legal campaign recently launched by J-M to expose what it calls a pattern of fraud and racketeering carried out by some of America's most prolific filers of asbestos lawsuits. J-M's legal actions assert those firms have advanced waves of fraudulent claims designed to maximize payouts from companies who were allegedly improperly added to long lists of repeat defendants.
J-M first leveled its fraud and racketeering claims against Simmons Hanly Conroy, of Alton, in 2024. The company followed with a similar lawsuit against the Edwardsville-based Gori Law Firm in early 2026.
Gori and Simmons Hanley rank as some of the most prolific filers of asbestos-related lawsuits in the U.S.
According to data compiled by national technology and management consulting company KCIC, the Gori firm ranked first again in 2025, filing 652 asbestos exposure lawsuits. Simmons Hanly ranked third, with 440 lawsuits.
However, over decades, the two firms have accounted for many thousands of lawsuits and much of America's asbestos litigation, primarily filed in Illinois state courts in Madison and St. Clair counties, near St. Louis.
J-M alone, for instance, has been sued more than 6,000 times since 2000, including more than 400 times by the Simmons firm.
J-M asserts it was identified as a defendant in those cases solely to drive up the number of defendants to improve the chances of securing settlements from companies that are either unwitting, confused or otherwise unwilling to fight the claims.
They note accusations of fraudulent behavior are nothing new in asbestos litigation, as evidenced by other cases in which plaintiffs' firms have been caught double-dipping - using litigation delay tactics to improperly collect from both asbestos lawsuits and later claims filed against bankrupt companies - or filing fraudulent claims altogether. These included famous cases that generated headlines in asbestos litigation involving CSX and Garlock Sealing Techs.
However, the company asserts it can prove the Simmons and Gori firms have engaged in alleged racketeering schemes to use fraudulent lawsuits specifically targeting J-M.
In court documents, J-M has said it started its investigation after a former asbestos lawyer at Simmons sued the firm for retaliation for reporting alleged wrongdoing. Scott Peebles ultimately settled his case, but J-M got involved with an effort to unseal certain portions of his allegations.
J-M claimed in its lawsuit that its probe has discovered clients were coached on what to say about exposure to an asbestos-containing pipe the company produced, or they outright lied.
To this point, proceedings had mainly focused on whether J-M could even file its lawsuits against the two firms.
A judge in federal court in southern Illinois hasn't yet ruled on a motion by the Gori firm to dismiss the claims against that firm.
And Gettleman had already once dismissed J-M's action against Simmons Hanly.
However, in the new ruling, Gettleman said J-M now has done enough to advance its racketeering claims.
He noted the company has bolstered its racketeering claims by specifically claiming Simmons Hanly used a relationship with Sokolove Law to market and recruit new asbestos clients and then use those new leads to overwhelm defendants with lawsuits.
Then, J-M alleged Simmons Hanly turned those leads into lawsuits against J-M that relied on "fraudulent representations" on behalf of clients who the court noted may have never worked for certain contractors, or on certain projects, or who may have never actually worked with J-M piping products at all.
The judge noted J-M further accused Simmons Hanly of concealing from both defendants and the court that it had also submitted claims to bankruptcy trusts on behalf of their clients, even as they continued to pursue new settlements.
Gettleman said J-M's lawsuit's claims are now specific and detailed enough to allow J-M to force Simmons Hanly to respond to the actual claims, at least.
Simmons Hanly had again urged the court to dismiss the revamped lawsuit, like the first, asserting the filing of lawsuits can't be considered racketeering and that the act of filing suit is protected by the First Amendment's right to petition for redress of grievance.
Gettleman, however, rejected those arguments, saying J-M should get the chance to prove its claims that the lawsuits were based on fraud, false testimony and concealed evidence.
In J-M’s statement, attorney Ashwin J. Ram, of the firm of Buchalter LLP, who is representing J-M in the action, described Gettleman's decision as "an important ruling for any company that has faced serial sham claims under the cover of litigation."
Ram noted the case will continue, allowing J-M "to examine how these claims were generated, investigated, and brought."
The Simmons Hanly firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
