Settlement Expected in Case Over Shein Law Asbestos Suits

[caption id="attachment_20365" align="alignnone" width="620"]

Benjamin Shein. Image via Youtube[/caption] A settlement may be on the horizon in an Illinois manufacturing company's lawsuit against Shein Law Center, a Philadelphia-based asbestos plaintiffs firm. In a motion to stay filed July 27, John Crane Inc. and Shein Law said they had "agreed in principle to a settlement that would enable the parties to discontinue this matter." They asked for a stay of upcoming discovery deadlines while they finalize the terms of the deal. John Crane Inc., an Illinois-based sealing and gasket manufacturer, sued Shein Law and lawyer Benjamin Shein in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming Shein Law fabricated and concealed information about its clients’ exposure to asbestos to obtain multimillion-dollar recoveries in lawsuits against JCI and other manufacturers. JCI filed the same claims in Illinois federal court last year. But U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, since Shein prepared and filed the lawsuits against JCI in Pennsylvania. JCI filed a separate Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act complaint against Texas law firm Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett last year as well, but that suit was also dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the two cases in June, finding that they were only tenuously connected to Illinois. Even while siding with the plaintiffs firms on jurisdiction, however, Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Kanne wrote that "the claims JCI levies are serious and ought to be examined." In the Pennsylvania complaint, JCI said Shein Law concealed evidence concerning its clients’ asbestos exposure in litigation against the company, and then cited the allegedly concealed exposure incidents in bankruptcy trust claims against other manufacturers. JCI alleged that Shein Law deliberately delayed filing bankruptcy trust claims until after tort litigation concluded, so JCI could not use the trust claims as evidence of other asbestos exposures. The firm also lied in discovery responses, JCI alleged, and instructed its clients to omit from their testimony knowledge of the asbestos exposures involving bankrupt companies. Mark Ferguson of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, who represents JCI, declined to comment Monday. Shein Law’s lawyer, Daniel Brier of Myers Brier & Kelly, did not respond to a request for comment. Another manufacturer, Garlock Sealing Technologies, brought similar claims against Shein Law, Simon Greenstone and other law firms in 2014. Garlock ultimately dropped those cases.