3M Center in Saint Paul, Minn.
FRANKFORT, Ky. – 3M, which has been allowed to sue black-lung lawyers over what it says were frivolous lawsuits, is fighting claims its attorneys filed state Bar complaints to embarrass one of them.
Plaintiffs lawyer Michael Martin is one of the targets of 3M’s racketeering lawsuit and recently filed counter-claims against the company. 3M filed a motion Nov. 11 to dismiss them in Kentucky federal court as barred by the statute of limitations, given that the ethics complaints were filed in 2023.
“In a case in which Defendants are accused of filing bogus claims against 3M because, among other things, they were barred by the statute of limitations—and Defendants knew they were but plowed ahead anyway—it is more than ironic that Defendant Martin would now assert two counterclaims against 3M that are barred by the statute of limitations,” attorneys for the company wrote.
A federal judge ruled against the motions to dismiss of Martin, Glenn Hammond and Johnny Givens, who formed a partnership that included cases over 3M respirators. Those suits allege the products were faulty, and coal miners ended up with black lung because of it.
But many cases were filed past a one-year statute of limitations period and still grouped in with viable claims – something Martin admitted. In 2023, he accidentally sent a text to one of 3M’s outside lawyers in a Texas case, complaining that Hammond is “hurting our clients with real claims because so many are frivolous.”
Allegations against Martin were mirrored in Bar complaints filed by 3M’s lawyers, who took that step “in their personal capacity pursuant to their professional obligations to report known violations of the ethical rules by another lawyer,” 3M says. Those complaints were filed in Kentucky and Texas.
The Kentucky Supreme Court’s Inquiry Commission dismissed the ethics complaint on June 29, and the Texas Bar’s Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel did the same in 2024. And given the confidential nature of proceedings, Martin couldn’t allege they were made to hurt his professional reputation, 3M says.
Martin’s counter-claims call the RICO case against him “sham litigation which lacks any factual basis.” He cites his professional accomplishments and the years he spent cooperating with 3M to root out cases that shouldn’t have been filed against it.
Martin and 3M agreed in 2023 to a mass dismissal of claims, to which 3M lawyers emailed “keep em coming!” Two days later, the company set out on a campaign to intimidate him and chill his representation of miners, including the Texas complaint, he says.
“In this grievance, 3M cared little about the facts, or sharing the complete record of the information with the bar committee about the pretrial agreements and how matters were handled by Martin in this litigation,” he wrote.
“3M persistently and repeatedly accused Martin of being unethical without telling the bar committee all of the facts. Despite 3M’s persistent and dogged attempt to suspend Martin’s law license, the 3M grievance was summarily dismissed on August 12, 2024.”
He filed three counts of abuse of process and was joined in the third by Givens.
Close to 50% of the lawsuits brought by Givens, Hammond and Martin have been dismissed. Out of a group of 446, 199 are no longer active, with the vast majority being abandoned instead of the lawyers filing proof required by the court.
Hammond, Givens and Martin reached a business agreement to pursue more than 850 claims against 3M filed over an 18-month period, but the errant text complicated the partnership. In a deposition, Martin said the text showed he did "not agree with the filings by co-counsel Glenn Hammond" and did "not believe these filings by co-counsel, Glenn Hammond, rise to the level of injury needed to be a good claim."
Martin and Givens have represented that they fired Hammond, who moved to disqualify them for “not properly representing the interests of their clients.” Hammond has also accused Martin and Givens of refusing to turn over files and trying to poach clients from him.
There are issues in black-lung cases that are similar to asbestos litigation. Plaintiffs need to be able to identify the products they used in the past – sometimes decades ago – and there is a certain timeframe for when the suits must be filed.
In black-lung cases, that window is one year after they begin to suspect their illness was caused by an allegedly defective respirator. 3M says Martin, Givens and Hammond have crossed the line in preserving claims with “materially false” statements about when they met with clients about litigation.
3M has filed 105 motions for summary judgment in the remaining cases, with all but seven arguing the statute of limitations bars them. It says it also found “disturbing” examples while deposing the plaintiffs, like one man who hadn’t worked as a miner since 1970 but still sued over the respirator, which didn’t go to market until 1972.
