East Palestine Settlement Malpractice Lawsuits: 10 Suits Target Class Counsel Behind $600M Norfolk Deal

The East Palestine settlement malpractice lawsuits are about 10 complaints filed in the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, reported by Law.com on October 13, 2026, that accuse the plaintiffs' firms behind the $600 million Norfolk Southern class settlement, including lawyers at Grant & Eisenhofer, Morgan & Morgan and Motley Rice, of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The residents say they gave up future health claims against the railroad on assurances of no long-term harm while their own lawyers held expert testing showing contamination above cancer screening levels, and they now want the lawyers, not Norfolk Southern, to pay.

The suits open a new front in a settlement that has already survived a Sixth Circuit appeal, a denied Supreme Court petition and a federal motion by 196 class members to rescind their releases. Because that federal route is closed for now, a state-court malpractice claim is the remaining path for a class member who signed the personal injury release and later fell ill. For the plaintiffs' bar, the cases test how far class counsel's duties to individual class members reach when counsel shape the communications that persuade those members to release claims, and whether a federal judge's fairness finding protects counsel from a later fraud claim in state court.

What the East Palestine malpractice lawsuits allege

According to the complaints as described by Salem News, WFMJ and Law.com, the plaintiffs are residents of Ohio and Pennsylvania who lived near the February 3, 2023 derailment and who joined the class settlement and signed its personal injury release. The suits plead several theories, led by legal malpractice (that the attorneys acted for their own benefit rather than their clients'), breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud tied to alleged concealment of an exposure expert's findings.

The factual core is a video. The complaints say a video produced by the litigation communications firm Rebuttal PR was shown to residents at a town hall about the settlement. In it, Dr. Arch Carson, who identifies himself as a physician with a PhD in environmental toxicology, told residents the exposure was small enough that no cancers or other adverse health effects were expected, according to the suit. The complaint acknowledges that Carson said in the video that the risk was not zero, but alleges that caveat never appeared in the settlement website's frequently asked questions, which is where many residents looked before deciding whether to release their personal injury claims.

The second pillar is withheld data. The complaints allege that class counsel retained industrial hygienist Stephen Petty to test the area, that Petty was barred from disclosing his results, and that, "upon information and belief," between 50% and 70% of his data points for dioxins or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons exceeded cancer screening levels. The plaintiffs say several of them have since been diagnosed with serious illnesses, including cancers. Because each signed a release that extinguished claims against Norfolk Southern for future injuries, the complaints argue they now have no remedy against the railroad and must look to the people whose conduct, they allege, induced them to sign.

These are allegations in pleadings. No court has ruled on them, and no public response from the named firms appeared in the coverage reviewed for this article.

Who is named in the lawsuits

Law.com reports that the defendants include Grant & Eisenhofer, Morgan & Morgan and Motley Rice, firms that represented hundreds of residents and businesses after the derailment. The first-filed complaint, as described by WFMJ, names Carson along with attorneys Stephanie Wolf, Adam Gomez, Seth Katz, Jayne Conroy and Nicholas Amato and their practices. Salem News reports that the complaints are split evenly between two Columbiana County Common Pleas judges: five assigned to Judge Megan Bickerton and five to Judge Scott Washam.

The inclusion of a physician alongside the lawyers matters. A malpractice claim against counsel turns on the attorney-client relationship; a claim against a consulting doctor who spoke to the class through a video will have to be framed as fraud or negligent misrepresentation, because there was no physician-patient relationship to anchor a medical negligence theory.

How the $600 million Norfolk Southern settlement worked

The settlement resolved the consolidated class action in the Northern District of Ohio. Judge Benita Y. Pearson granted final approval on September 25, 2024. It covered people and businesses within 20 miles of the derailment, and class counsel reported more than 55,000 claims. Inside the $600 million fund, $120 million was set aside for personal injury.

The personal injury component was optional, and that design is at the heart of the new cases. A resident could take property and direct payments without releasing bodily injury claims, or opt into a personal injury payment in exchange for a release that included future health effects. Class counsel first projected an average personal injury payment of about $10,000. In July 2024, about three weeks before the August 22, 2024 deadline, counsel announced that the projected payment had more than doubled to $25,000 for residents living within two miles, even though the $120 million personal injury fund did not grow.

A July 22, 2024 email from co-lead counsel M. Elizabeth Graham of Grant & Eisenhofer, quoted in a separate residents' suit, warned that the low level of personal injury participation was "putting the settlement at risk." The new complaints treat the timing of the increased projection and the town-hall messaging as evidence that counsel were working to raise release rates.

Settlement term	Figure
Total settlement	$600 million
Class area	Within 20 miles of the derailment
Final approval	September 25, 2024 (Judge Benita Y. Pearson, N.D. Ohio)
Claims submitted	More than 55,000
Personal injury fund	$120 million
Initial projected average personal injury payment	About $10,000
Revised projection, July 2024 (within two miles)	$25,000
Personal injury election deadline	August 22, 2024
Attorney fees	$162 million (27%)
Litigation expenses	$18 million (3%)
Reported actual payment (per Epiq, via CBS Pittsburgh)	About $12,400

How much did East Palestine residents actually receive?

Residents who took the personal injury option received far less than the $25,000 figure. CBS Pittsburgh, citing Epiq, the court-appointed administrator, reported that recipients got closer to $12,400, less than half of what had been promoted. The administration history explains part of the gap. The original administrator, Kroll, assigned a flat $25,000 to personal injury claimants, which class counsel said bypassed the points-based formula (a 100-point base value adjusted for distance and medical factors), and Kroll warned the $120 million fund might not cover all claims. Judge Pearson removed Kroll in June 2025 and appointed Epiq. Partial personal injury payments began in December 2025, with Epiq stating that award amounts could be adjusted after its review.

The payout gap is not itself a malpractice theory, since a settlement matrix projection is not a guarantee. But it supplies the damages narrative: residents say they traded away future claims for roughly half the money they were told to expect.

What happened to earlier challenges to the settlement?

Every federal challenge has failed so far, which is why the malpractice suits are in state court.

Date	Forum	Event	Outcome
Sept. 25, 2024	N.D. Ohio	Final approval of $600M class settlement	Approved; 27% fee awarded
Jan. 2025	N.D. Ohio	Objectors ordered to post appeal bond	$850,000 bond required
Nov. 25, 2025	Sixth Circuit, No. 24-4086	Morgan & Morgan fee appeal; objector appeals	Fee allocation affirmed in part, remanded on Morgan & Morgan's share; objector appeals dismissed
March 2026	U.S. Supreme Court	Objectors' petition over the bond	Review denied
Spring 2026	N.D. Ohio	196 class members move to rescind personal injury releases	Denied in 29-page opinion; appeal filed
Aug.–Sept. 2026	Public reporting	Petty testing results released	Data cited in new complaints
Oct. 13, 2026	Columbiana County Common Pleas	About 10 malpractice suits reported	Pending

The Sixth Circuit decision is notable for what it said about the class lawyers' own disputes. Morgan & Morgan, which received a fee allocation reported at $7,723,709.87, challenged the settlement's quick-pay provision and the allocation process. The court held the firm lacked standing to attack the quick-pay term because it had helped negotiate it, signed the agreement and attested to its "full[ ] support" for the settlement and fee award. It upheld delegating initial fee allocation to co-lead class counsel but remanded so the district court could address Morgan & Morgan's specific objections to its share. The objectors' appeals ended for procedural reasons: one was a day late, and others were dismissed when the objectors did not post the $850,000 bond. The Supreme Court declined to review the bond dispute in March 2026.

The most direct precursor is Judge Pearson's ruling on the release-rescission motions brought for 196 class members. They argued class counsel and Norfolk Southern hid long-term health risks. Pearson disagreed, writing that the movants had not identified "any conduct constituting fraud, let alone a pattern," and that conflicting opinions among professionals about the severity of health risks do not amount to fraud. She also reasoned that residents made a deliberate choice to waive future injury claims that a federal rule of civil procedure could not undo. Those residents have appealed, now relying on Petty's opinions as undisclosed adverse evidence.

Can East Palestine residents still sue Norfolk Southern?

Generally not for injuries covered by the release. A resident who elected the personal injury payment released claims against Norfolk Southern, including claims for future health effects, and the federal court has refused to rescind those releases. Residents who did not elect the personal injury payment, or who opted out of the class entirely, kept those claims, subject to the statute of limitations and the separate questions of causation any toxic exposure case faces. That distinction explains the structure of the new complaints: the plaintiffs say they are pursuing only the personal liability of the attorneys, the physician and others whose conduct led them to sign.

Can class members sue class counsel for malpractice?

They can file, and the East Palestine suits will test how far such claims go. Class counsel owe duties to the class as a whole, and courts often describe the relationship with absent class members as more limited than an ordinary engagement. Here, though, the plaintiffs say they were individual clients of the defendant firms as well as class members, which supports pleading a conventional attorney-client relationship. The harder questions are likely to be these:

• Collateral attack. A federal court found the settlement fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) and later refused to find fraud in the release process. Defendants can be expected to argue that a state-court malpractice claim is an impermissible collateral attack on that judgment or that the issue is precluded. Plaintiffs will respond that a malpractice claim seeks damages from their own lawyers, not relief from the judgment.
• Causation. Ohio legal malpractice requires proof that the breach caused the loss, which often means proving the "case within the case." Plaintiffs will have to show they would not have released their claims, or would have obtained more, had the Petty data and Carson's full caveat been disclosed, and, to recover for illnesses, that the derailment caused them.
• Fraud versus professional judgment. Judge Pearson's statement that disagreement among experts does not amount to fraud is likely to feature in motions to dismiss the fraud counts.
• Timing. Ohio applies a one-year statute of limitations to legal malpractice under R.C. 2305.11(A), and the Ohio Supreme Court's test in Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold (1989) starts the clock on the later of a "cognizable event" or termination of the attorney-client relationship for that matter. Releases were signed in 2024, so defendants may argue that earlier events, such as the payment shortfall disclosed in 2025 or the rescission motions filed in September 2025, put residents on notice. Plaintiffs are likely to point to the August and September 2026 release of Petty's results as the cognizable event.

Why Stephen Petty's testing results matter

Petty's data are the evidentiary hinge. NewsNation reported in late August 2026 that class counsel had retained Petty as their testing expert and that his results were not disclosed to residents, including counsel's own clients, while the settlement was negotiated. Petty said that 50% to 70% of data points for dioxins or PAHs exceeded screening levels for cancer, and he released his full results publicly on September 12, 2026. He also said further analysis was needed to determine what the results mean for people living there, a qualification defendants will emphasize, since a screening-level exceedance is not proof of disease causation. Another independent tester, Scott Smith, reported elevated dioxin levels; both men are represented by the Government Accountability Project as whistleblowers.

For the malpractice theory, the question is less whether the contamination caused any particular illness than whether a reasonable lawyer would have disclosed the expert's adverse findings to clients before advising them on whether to sign a release of future injury claims.

How this compares with other fee and conduct fights in mass torts

The East Palestine cases arrive as courts and plaintiffs scrutinize the conduct of mass tort counsel. In the paraquat MDL, Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel this week ordered one firm to disclose its funding sources after most of its clients refused a settlement. Maui wildfire litigation has produced an appeal over fee caps. And business-funded groups continue to promote RICO suits against personal injury lawyers. The East Palestine suits differ because the challengers are the clients themselves, alleging that counsel pushed them into a release rather than kept them out of one.

What it means for class counsel and mass tort firms

• Disclosure of adverse expert findings. Firms that retain testing or causation experts while negotiating releases of future injury claims face a concrete risk if those findings are not shared with clients before release decisions. Documenting what was disclosed, and when, is now part of the liability picture.
• Third-party messaging. Videos, FAQs and town-hall materials produced by communications vendors can be attributed to counsel. The East Palestine complaints target a caveat that appeared in a video but not in a website FAQ; consistency across channels is a measurable exposure point.
• Projected payments. Raising a projected average payment near an election deadline without enlarging the fund invites later claims when actual payments fall short. A settlement matrix communication that states the range and contingencies limits that exposure.
• Insurance and reserves. Ten coordinated suits against several national firms may test professional liability coverage, including how insurers treat related claims under a single limit.
• Defense of the judgment. Expect defendants to lean on the federal fairness findings, the Sixth Circuit's account of Morgan & Morgan's support for the deal, and Pearson's no-fraud ruling.

What it means for residents and claimants' counsel

For East Palestine residents who signed personal injury releases, the federal rescission appeal and these state malpractice suits are the two pending avenues; neither has produced a ruling on the merits. Residents who did not release personal injury claims are in a different position and are not bound by the release. Lawyers evaluating new clients will need to check the one-year Ohio malpractice clock against each client's knowledge, the date representation ended, and the 2026 disclosures. For mass tort practitioners elsewhere, the cases are a reminder that a class settlement with an optional future-injury release creates two sets of risks: one at approval and another years later if illnesses appear.

FAQ

What are the East Palestine settlement malpractice lawsuits?

They are about 10 suits filed in the Columbiana County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, reported October 13, 2026, in which residents accuse the class lawyers from the $600 million Norfolk Southern settlement of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud over personal injury releases.

Which law firms are being sued over the East Palestine settlement?

Law.com reports that the defendants include Grant & Eisenhofer, Morgan & Morgan and Motley Rice. One complaint names attorneys Seth Katz, Jayne Conroy, Stephanie Wolf, Adam Gomez and Nicholas Amato, plus Dr. Arch Carson.

How much did the lawyers get from the East Palestine settlement?

Class counsel were awarded $162 million in fees, or 27% of the $600 million fund, plus $18 million in expenses, for $180 million in total.

Did a judge already reject fraud claims against class counsel?

Yes, in the federal case. Judge Benita Pearson denied motions by 196 class members to rescind their releases, finding they had not identified any fraudulent conduct. That ruling is on appeal and does not decide the state malpractice claims.

Can residents who signed the release still sue Norfolk Southern?

Not for claims the release covers, which include future health effects. The malpractice suits seek damages from the lawyers and the physician instead.

What is the deadline for a legal malpractice claim in Ohio?

One year under R.C. 2305.11(A), measured from the later of the cognizable event or the end of the attorney-client relationship for that matter, under the Zimmie test.