A lemon law case can end twice. The first ending is the one the car owner sees: a repurchase, a refund, a defective vehicle finally turned in. The second often happens later and out of the owner’s view, when the manufacturer and the owner’s attorney settle who pays for the legal work that got the owner there.
George Mkrtchyan, Esq., managing attorney at Court House Lawyers in Glendale, California, argues that the second ending counts for car owners nearly as much as the first. Under California lemon law, the fee rule is what lets an ordinary owner hire a lawyer to take on a car company at all. When that rule is tested, the people with the most at stake are often the owners who will need it next.
How California Lemon Law Puts Attorney’s Fees on the Manufacturer
California’s lemon law is part of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. One provision does much of the work of making it usable. Under Civil Code § 1794, a buyer who prevails can recover costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, that the court finds were reasonably incurred. In practice, that means the manufacturer pays a prevailing consumer’s attorney’s fees.
The reason is arithmetic. A defective car is a serious expense for the household that owns it, but the value of a single repurchase claim can be modest next to the cost of litigating against a manufacturer by the hour. Without fee shifting, legal bills could consume much of what an owner recovers. With it, an owner can generally bring a claim without paying a lawyer out of pocket.
“For a lemon law client, hiring counsel generally costs nothing out of pocket, because the law puts the fees on the manufacturer in a successful claim,” Mkrtchyan says. “That is the part of the statute that makes representation possible for people who otherwise would not be able to hire an attorney at an hourly rate to take on a vehicle manufacturer.”
The Lemon Law Fee Bill That Went to Arbitration
Fee shifting only works if the fees are actually paid. One dispute with General Motors shows how that can play out. After a lemon law case, Mkrtchyan’s firm requested $15,527.50 in fees and costs. The figure was built from 27.05 hours of attorney time at $550 an hour, plus $650 in costs.
General Motors offered $2,000. The firm took the request to a lemon law arbitrator, who awarded the full amount.
The gap between those two numbers is the story. One side valued the work at roughly an eighth of what the other documented. The statute’s standard does not ask what either side would prefer to pay. It asks about actual time expended and whether it was reasonably incurred, which tends to turn a fee dispute into a question about the record.
Why Lemon Law Fee Requests Rest on the Record
A fee request built on hours is only as strong as the documentation behind it. Each entry needs to show what was done and why it was reasonable for the case: reviewing repair orders, preparing a repurchase demand, negotiating with the manufacturer. A request that lists hours in that way gives a decision maker something concrete to evaluate. A request that offers only a total, by contrast, can leave the other side room to argue the number down.
Mkrtchyan admits that this part of the work is not the part anyone looks forward to.
“Fee disputes take time that should be spent on the next client’s case,” he says. “But when the hours are documented properly, the work can usually speak for itself.”
That view connects the fee fight back to the owner. A firm that lets documented fees be cut without contest may find it harder, over time, to keep taking the smaller cases where the repurchase amount is modest. Each fee award that tracks the record helps keep those cases viable for the attorneys who handle them.
What Lemon Law Fee Fights Mean for the Next Car Owner
For owners, the practical point is simple. Because the statute puts a prevailing consumer’s attorney’s fees on the manufacturer, the lawyer’s fee does not have to come out of the buyback check. At Court House Lawyers, the lemon law practice runs on that structure: the firm takes no percentage of a client’s buyback, and its fees are paid by the manufacturer when the consumer prevails.
That arrangement depends on manufacturers paying reasonable fees when they are owed, and on attorneys being willing to contest offers that do not reflect the work. An owner shopping for representation can reasonably ask how a firm is paid, and whether any part of the repurchase goes to the lawyer.
Mkrtchyan brings over a decade of Song-Beverly and lemon law experience to that question, and his view is consistent across it: the fee rule is consumer protection, even when the fight over it happens after the client has gone home.
The owner who turns in a defective car may never read the fee award. It is still part of the reason that the owner could have a lawyer at all.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is provided for general knowledge. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers should seek advice from qualified legal professionals regarding particular cases or situations.
