Attorney Fees in South Carolina Lemon Law Cases

SC lemon-law cases have a mixed fee-recovery basis — DISCRETIONARY attorney fees under § 56-28-50 (Lemon Law) + MANDATORY fees under § 39-5-140(a) (SCUTPA, subject to public-interest test) + federal Magnuson-Moss fees under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2). The SCUTPA + Magnuson-Moss combination — rather than the Lemon Law fees alone — carries the contingency-fee economics that make SC lemon-law representation viable for moderate-value cases.

The three fee-shifting bases

1. South Carolina Lemon Law § 56-28-50 — DISCRETIONARY

§ 56-28-50 provides:

“the prevailing party may be allowed by the court to recover… reasonable attorney’s fees… unless the court in its discretion determines that such an award would be inappropriate.”

Key features:

• “May be allowed… unless court determines inappropriate” — DISCRETIONARY, with built-in safety valve for courts to deny.
• “Reasonable attorney’s fees” — typically lodestar calculation when awarded.
• Weaker than peer states: Alabama § 8-20A-3(4) mandatory, Tennessee § 55-24-204 mandatory, Virginia § 59.1-207.14 mandatory + expert fees, North Carolina § 20-351.8 mandatory.

2. SCUTPA § 39-5-140(a) — MANDATORY

§ 39-5-140(a) provides:

“Upon the finding by the court of a violation of this article, the court shall award to the person bringing such action under this section reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”

Key features:

• “Court shall award” — MANDATORY for prevailing plaintiff (and theoretically prevailing defendant, though defendant fees are rare in practice).
• “Reasonable attorney’s fee” — lodestar calculation.
• Subject to public-interest pleading requirement — three-element test (unlawful practice + actual damages + public-interest impact).
• Attorney fees do not constitute “actual damages” for treble calculation (SC Supreme Court precedent).
• No-class-action restriction under § 39-5-140(a) — individual capacity only.

3. Magnuson-Moss 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2) — permissive but routinely awarded

§ 2310(d)(2) provides:

“If a consumer finally prevails in any action brought under paragraph (1) of this subsection, he may be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of cost and expenses (including attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended)…”

Key features:

• “May be allowed” — technically permissive but routinely awarded for prevailing consumers.
• “Based on actual time expended” — federal lodestar.
• Federal-court venue — D.S.C. divisions.

Lodestar calculation

All three fee provisions use lodestar (rate × hours) when awarded. Components:

Hours

The court evaluates:

• Reasonableness of hours — were the hours spent reasonably necessary?
• Documentation quality — contemporaneous time records with task descriptions.
• Duplication — hours by multiple attorneys for same task may be reduced.
• Excessiveness — hours disproportionate to case complexity may be reduced.

Rate

The court evaluates:

• Prevailing market rate in the relevant geographic market (Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, Spartanburg, Myrtle Beach).
• Attorney’s experience — partner vs. associate, lemon-law specialization.
• Comparable cases.

Typical SC lemon-law attorney rates (subject to market and experience variation):

• Junior associates: $200-300/hour.
• Senior associates: $300-400/hour.
• Partners: $400-600/hour.
• Lemon-law specialists: $400-700/hour.

Multipliers

Lodestar multipliers (1.5× to 3×) are occasionally applied for exceptional results or contingent-fee risk, but straight lodestar is typical in SC lemon-law cases.

Contingency-fee economics

Most SC lemon-law attorneys take cases on contingency. Typical structures:

• All-fee-to-attorney — consumer keeps full statutory recovery; attorney keeps all court-awarded fees.
• Modified contingency — attorney keeps court-awarded fees plus percentage of overall recovery.
• Hybrid — combination structures.

The SCUTPA mandatory fees + Magnuson-Moss fees make the all-fee-to-attorney model viable for SCUTPA-eligible cases. For cases without SCUTPA viability (no public-interest impact), the discretionary § 56-28-50 fees create more economic risk.

Why SC fees are weaker than most peer states

SC’s discretionary § 56-28-50 fees are weaker than:

• Alabama § 8-20A-3(4) — mandatory.
• Tennessee § 55-24-204 — mandatory.
• North Carolina § 20-351.8 — mandatory.
• Virginia § 59.1-207.14 — mandatory + expert-witness fees.
• New Jersey § 56:12-32 — mandatory + expert-witness fees.

For SC consumers:

• SCUTPA fees (when public-interest satisfied) — load-bearing.
• Magnuson-Moss federal fees — additional fee-shifting basis.
• Lemon Law § 56-28-50 fees — supplemental, not primary.

Why fee shifting creates settlement leverage

Mandatory SCUTPA fee-shifting creates asymmetric cost exposure for manufacturers (when public-interest satisfied):

• If manufacturer wins: no fees recovered.
• If consumer wins: manufacturer pays both sides’ fees.

As litigation progresses and consumer-side fees accumulate, the manufacturer’s total exposure grows. This creates strong incentive to settle before fee accumulation peaks.

Recoverable expenses

In addition to attorney fees, courts typically award:

• Filing fees and process service.
• Deposition costs — court reporter, transcripts.
• Expert witness fees — vehicle-defect experts, damages experts.
• Travel expenses for out-of-state depositions.
• Document production costs.
• Mediation fees — typically shared but recoverable to prevailing party.

SCUTPA § 39-5-140(a) explicitly includes “costs” alongside attorney fees.

Bottom line

SC’s mixed fee-recovery basis — discretionary § 56-28-50 + mandatory § 39-5-140(a) + Magnuson-Moss § 2310(d)(2) — creates contingency-fee economics that depend on SCUTPA viability. For cases with strong public-interest evidence, mandatory SCUTPA fees + Magnuson-Moss federal fees enable cost-free representation for consumers. For cases without SCUTPA viability, the discretionary Lemon Law fees create more economic uncertainty — but courts routinely award § 56-28-50 fees to prevailing consumers absent strong reasons to deny.

Related

Article

Cash-and-Keep Settlements in South Carolina Lemon Law Cases

Cash-and-keep settlements in SC lemon-law cases — consumer keeps the vehicle, manufacturer pays a settlement. Useful when SC's manufacturer's-option remedy structure makes refund or replacement impractical.

Read → Article

Refund (Repurchase) Under South Carolina Lemon Law

How an SC Lemon Law refund works under § 56-28-40 — full purchase price + collateral + incidental damages, less reasonable allowance for use. MANUFACTURER chooses between refund and replacement.

Read → Article

Replacement Vehicle Under South Carolina Lemon Law

How a replacement vehicle works under SC Lemon Law § 56-28-40 — comparable new vehicle, manufacturer's choice, when manufacturer prefers replacement, when refund is offered instead.

Read → Article

SCUTPA Damages in South Carolina Lemon Law Cases

How SCUTPA damages stack on top of Lemon Law recovery — actual damages, MANDATORY TREBLE for willful/knowing under § 39-5-140(a), MANDATORY § 39-5-140(a) attorney fees, subject to the public-interest pleading requirement.

Read →