Learn Why Car Companies Pay for Your Attorney in California Lemon Law Cases

The California Lemon Law, or Song-Beverly Act, was designed to protect consumers who purchase or lease a new or used vehicle in the State of California. It holds manufacturers accountable for the warranties that come with said vehicles by providing consumers with legal recourse when manufacturers fail to repair defects or non-conformities covered by these warranties.

To make the pursuit of a Lemon Law claim affordable to consumers, the California Legislature included a provision in the Song-Beverly Act that puts manufacturers on the hook for consumers’ attorney fees. Granted, the consumer must prevail in their claims against the manufacturer first before they may seek the recovery of their attorneys’ fees and costs.

Because of this “fee-shifting” provision in the law, our experienced and knowledgeable attorneys can represent you, the consumer, against your automobile’s manufacturer where we do not charge you directly for our attorneys’ fees and costs incurred. When you retain Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® to represent you in your Lemon Law case, we do not get paid unless we win or settle your case.

In addition to relying solely on the fee-shifting provision of the California Lemon Law to recover our attorneys’ fees, we never charge our clients a retainer or require them to front the court costs associated with their claim. This policy contrasts with that of other California firms, some of which require you to pay their fees or costs upfront, ensuring that their attorneys get paid regardless of the outcome of the case.

At Krohn & Moss, Ltd., we cover and front all costs associated with the filing of your claim in a court of law, if a lawsuit becomes necessary. This includes such costs as filing fees, service fees, subpoena fees, deposition fees, and mediation fees. Our confidence in our ability to settle or win your case allows us to defer any such costs, knowing that we’ll just bill the manufacturer when we prevail. And with more than 99% of our cases settling outside of court, our track record speaks for itself.

Our policy of representing consumers in the State of California by relying on the “fee-shifting” provision of the law conforms with the public policy of the California Legislature. In the 1998 case of Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., the California Court of appeals explained that the California Legislature designed the “fee-shifting” provision to make it financially feasible for consumers to bring suit under the California Lemon Law, even in cases with relatively low damages.

The Court of Appeal noted that “the Song-Beverly Act is strongly pro-consumer” and that “the primary financial benefit [that] the Song–Beverly Act offers to consumers… [is] their ability, if successful, to recover their attorney’s fees.” By allowing prevailing consumers to recover their attorney fees, the California Lemon Law provides those with “lemon” vehicles a strong incentive to seek legal help in a situation in which a hiring an attorney and filing a lawsuit against an auto manufacturer might not otherwise have been economically feasible.

So, if you think you might have a lemon, contact Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® today for a FREE CASE REVIEW. We’ll help you learn more about your rights under the California Lemon Law and counsel you on the best course of action in your case.

Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® is pleased to comply with state regulations concerning client statements and testimonials:

In order for you to see our client video or read our client statements, please click the green button below. You will be taken directly to the video or client statements.

If you are interested in viewing information about the lawyer/firm’s past results and testimonials about the lawyer/firm, please read and acknowledge the information below.

The information in this section contains information about the lawyer/firm’s past results, testimonials about the lawyer/firm, and statements regarding the lawyer/firm’s quality. The information has not been reviewed or approved by Bar Associations of the states in which the law firm practices.

The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and testimonials have been provided.

All results of cases handled by the lawyer/firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.

The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by the lawyer/firm or of the experience of all clients or others with the lawyer/firm. Past results are no guarantee of future results. Every case is different, and each client’s case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.

The testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.