Is Ford fighting lemon law fraud -- or punishing its legal adversaries?

Ford Motor Co.'s sweeping racketeering lawsuit against top California lemon law attorneys has reignited debate over the state's powerful consumer protection laws--with legal experts split on whether the case exposes systemic abuse or represents a high-stakes act of corporate retaliation. While some defense attorneys claim fee-shifting provisions invite overbilling, others argue Ford is targeting lawyers who have successfully held the automaker accountable in court.

"What we've seen with these firms over the years is that they leverage [Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act] sometimes where there's a very nominal or minimal settlement for their client - to a very high attorney's fee claim ... which is why we've seen so many of these proliferate so long," Liam E. Felsen, a partner at Frost Brown Todd, said in a phone interview.

Felsen specializes in product liability warranty defense and said the overbilling that Ford's lawsuit alleged is often enabled through these cases' fee motion stages.

"Whether there's reform wanted here -- certainly, because as long as plaintiffs' attorneys can get these fees, then it's going to keep their push to file so many of these cases," Felsen continued.

"You'll see these long complaints and then this extensive discovery that they've used over and over again in multiple cases. Then they will claim hours and hours of work that they performed doing this, even though it's just routine that they trotted out on every case."

Joseph A. Kaufman, a lemon law consumer attorney in Pasadena, argued the statute itself is "instrumental in opening up the doors to California consumers" and is often mischaracterized as something that drives related practitioners to jack up costs for themselves.

"To the extent that people are speaking as if the fee shifting statute is a bad thing, it's not, and that's part of a larger effort to attack a law. ... It's expensive for car companies to buy back lemons," Kaufman said. "California's lemon law was created ... to open up the courtroom doors and put the onus on manufacturers to honor the warranties that come with these vehicles."

Neither Felsen nor Kaufman are involved in Ford's lawsuit.

A lemon in this instance refers to vehicles with significant defects.

"All of these attacks against California's lemon law are being funded by Ford and GM [General Motors] because they are the ones that have the cars with the most problems," Kaufman continued. "And rather than spend their money on complying with the law or making better cars - which are their options - they're spending their money on these attacks."

General Motors is not a party to Ford's federal racketeering lawsuit and has made no legal allegations of misconduct against any lemon law attorneys.

On Wednesday, Ford Motor Co. accused multiple prominent California lemon law attorneys and their firms of orchestrating a years-long billing scheme across thousands of cases against car makers that allegedly resulted in inflated legal fees of more than $100 million.

Knight Law Group LLP, a firm named in Ford's suit along with current and former firm partners, vehemently denied the allegations as "ridiculous" and characterized the suit as a "thinly veiled attempt" to silence lawyers who merely sought justice for consumers who legally challenged automakers for selling them defective products.

Former Altman Law Group partner Bryan C. Altman, now a partner at Quill & Arrow LLP, along with Wirtz Law APC founding partner Richard M. Wirtz were also named in the lawsuit. A clerk for Quill & Arrow said Altman was in a deposition and would not be able to provide an immediate comment. Wirtz did not respond to a request for comment that was left with a clerk at his firm.

According to the complaint filed by Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP partner Daniel A. Saunders, among the alleged deceptive practices were billing for more than 24 hours of work in a single day, double-booking appearances at trials in different jurisdictions and fabricating task entries that were never performed. Ford Motor Company v. Knight law Group LLP et al., 2:25-cv-04550 (C.D. Cal., filed May 21, 2025).

The Song-Beverly Act provides remedies to consumer plaintiffs that include a fully covered replacement product as well as, in some instances, up to double the amount in litigation expenses and fees.

Felsen, for example, argued some attorneys take advantage of the broadness of the statute because it is purportedly limitless depending on how long each case lasts.

"I think that in terms of the law, there's no limitation and there's no correlation between how much damages are awarded, or the value of the product, versus the amount of attorney's fees, which typically greatly exceed the value of any product," Felsen added.

However, Kaufman argued the overbilling problem in lemon law litigation is not limited to only what the statute allows plaintiffs' attorneys to collect.

"In flat fee cases too, defense attorneys have been known to overbill or value bill before they negotiate next year's flat fee contract," Kaufman wrote in a follow-up email.

"All attorneys are subject to the same rules of professional responsibility, and that includes ethical billing practices. ... The allegations raised by Ford in its lawsuit can, and should have, been made in connection with the underlying fee motion. The lawsuit feels a little bit like Ford is reacting to some massive adverse verdicts those attorneys have obtained against Ford over the years."