In a protracted eight-year-long legal battle, lawsuits against pharmaceutical and beauty giant Johnson & Johnson seem to be finally coming to a resolution. These cases have been some of the largest and most expensive in recent history and are providing memorable lessons for companies, consumers, and legal firms as to how massive claims can be best adjudicated to render justice.

LTL Management, J&J’s Texas-based subsidiary, is being pursued for J&J’s baby powder product and whether certain bottles contained trace elements of talc tainted with asbestos over the years. Most commonly associated with glass wool used for attic insulation, asbestos is also found near talc mine deposits, and the company has been fighting close to 61,000 claims that those trace elements caused various illnesses in consumers.

The subsidiary based in Texas was created as a holding vehicle for the various claims against the company, a practice favored in state bankruptcy law.

The merits of the scientific findings in the case itself have been hotly debated for some time and will continue to be. What’s at stake in our justice system, however, is the ultimate role of those consumers who felt wronged and how their voices will be heard as these cases meet their end.

The tens of thousands of disparate cases have ranged in the level of harm consumers say they endured as a result of using the product, and have been split up into several class action lawsuits and multi-district litigation cases heard by different judges, juries, and courts.

This is standard fare for large tort law cases but is exacerbated as additional injury law firms seek class participants for these big suits through direct recruiting or spending millions on advertising.

It is no secret that an entire industry of plaintiff attorneys active in tort law depend on high-profile cases such as these to seek massive rewards as a cut. Whether or not claims are legitimate, publicly traded companies with reputations and stock prices to maintain would often rather cut a deal than risk a lengthy trial process that will balloon their legal budget and drag their brands through the mud of media coverage.

When final awards or settlements are made, attorney fees usually come out as high as a third of the entire payout, or more. The lawyers that halted Elon Musk’s controversial payment plan, for example, are seeking nearly $7 billion in fees from Tesla as a result of their case, which would be one of the largest legal payouts in American history. Musk recently announced the company would move its headquarters to Texas after how Tesla has been treated in other jurisdictions.

In the case of Johnson & Johnson, the company has offered multiple options to claimants looking to settle out of court rather than continue costly legal battles that could result in fewer rewards for those harmed. The latest settlement would be a combined $6.5 billion paid out over 25 years to those who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

For consumers who believe they’ve faced real harm and are involved in these cases, whether or not they can prove it, they deserve a chance to end the expensive ordeal and reach a settlement, as they should in any case.

But considering that some of the country’s largest tort law firms have an ongoing interest in drawing out these legal fights, either because of the ongoing legal fees or the promise of a healthier payout, it is not clear whether those settlements announced will be favorably presented to their clients.

Consumers who were affected deserve to be heard and to have their cases justly administered. If they are offered a deal, they should not have their rights limited simply because a larger payday could hypothetically be on the horizon.

When the people filing the lawsuit are kept from making a settlement by their lawyers, as reports frequently indicate, we should ask hard questions about the incentives of the lawyers and legal firms that bring these types of cases.

We cannot know the machinations of what injury law firms are telling their clients about current settlements or future prospects, but we would hope these are ethical, truthful, and represent their clients’ interests.

What’s at stake in the broader context is the future of our judicial system and the faith of everyday people that they can get a fair shake in court, without losing out on what they’ve been promised.

Consumers harmed by-products should have the ability to not only be heard in court but to participate in a fair, transparent process where they can seek redress.

Allowing the multi-year litigation process to continue without giving clients and consumers affected the option to settle now not only risks leaving thousands without proper justice, it also undermines the rule of law which is meant to protect Americans when we need it most.

We hope this remains true, and that no bad precedents are set for future claimants.

Originally published here