By David Thomas and Mike Scarcella

June 18 (Reuters) - (Billable Hours is Reuters' weekly report on lawyers and money. Please send tips or suggestions to D.Thomas@thomsonreuters.com.)

Companies including Uber UBER.N, FedEx FDX.N and JM Eagle are increasingly turning to a 56-year-old anti-racketeering law created to fight organized crime to bring cases against plaintiffs' law firms.

Rideshare and logistics companies, industrial manufacturers, insurers and automakers have filed at least 20 such lawsuits in U.S. federal courts over the last two years. Many of them claim the attorneys are filing cases with exaggerated or fabricated injury claims, in some cases with the aid of shady medical providers, to extract inflated payouts.

The companies' lawsuits vary in their details, but they rest on a common theory. They allege groups of unscrupulous lawyers are violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – the federal law passed in 1970 to help rein in mafia bosses who were often insulated by foot soldiers, for a pattern of unlawful behavior. The law's author, G. Robert Blakey, died last month at the age of 90, according to the Notre Dame Law School.

In addition to its criminal component, RICO also has a civil component that allows plaintiffs to win triple damages if they prove that a defendant operated or managed an enterprise that engaged in racketeering activity for an extended period of time.

Allegations in the wave of civil RICO cases targeting injury lawyers range from falsifying documents and testimony to staging car accidents. PVC pipe maker JM Eagle, for instance, alleges law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy coached clients into falsely giving "nearly uniform" testimony about how they came into contact with asbestos-cement pipes. The law firm has denied wrongdoing.

U.S. automaker Ford Motor Company F.N sued several California lawyers and law firms under RICO over claims they fraudulently inflated their legal fees in cases brought by car customers under the state's Lemon Law, including allegations that a single lawyer billed more than 57 hours in one day.

Most of the cases were filed by rideshare giant Uber Technologies, which brought lawsuits in Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Philadelphia, and insurer Roosevelt Road, which brought five cases in New York. Other cases are pending from other insurers and manufacturer 3M.

Their results have been limited so far. Of the 20 lawsuits examined by Reuters, 14 are still in the early stages or on hold. Only one has survived a motion to dismiss – Uber and FedEx's lawsuit against Philadelphia law firm Simon & Simon for allegedly steering clients to corrupt medical providers who ​exaggerate injuries and create false medical records.

"We’re obviously very encouraged by the fact that in our Pennsylvania case, we won at the motions to dismiss phase, and we believe that each of our other cases is meritorious and will move forward as well," an Uber spokesperson said. FedEx in a statement said it joined the case "to address concerning patterns in certain auto accidents and medical claims."

JM Eagle and Ford each said they were victims of fraud and misconduct committed by lawyers who have sued them. A spokesperson for 3M and attorneys for Roosevelt Road did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Simon & Simon has denied Uber and FedEx's allegations. It filed counterclaims in the Philadelphia case last week, alleging the companies want to sink his business and "chill other personal injury ​firms from achieving the success that the Simon firm has had" against them.

Three cases – two by Roosevelt Road and one by Ford – were thrown out by federal judges in New York and California. The companies have appealed. Two others, one from Roosevelt Road and JM Eagle's case against the Simmons firm, were dismissed but the companies were permitted to amend their claims. A lawyer for the Simmons firm said JM Eagle's amended lawsuit "is substantially the same as the complaint already dismissed."

Other lawyers facing lawsuits from Uber and Roosevelt Road have denied wrongdoing and accused the companies of improperly weaponizing the RICO Act against them.

Private plaintiffs and criminal prosecutors have had some success bringing RICO claims against lawyers. A federal jury in Alabama in January found a human rights lawyer liable for racketeering and defamation for allegedly bringing fraudulent lawsuits and paying witnesses to deliver false testimony linking coal producer Drummond to a violent Colombian paramilitary group.

The judge overseeing Drummond's case said Wednesday the coal producer can recover $256 million – minus an unspecified amount – from lawyer Terry Collingsworth, his law firm and other defendants. Collingsworth said he would appeal.

In 2007, one of the name partners of law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman pleaded guilty to a racketeering charge as part of a broader scheme involving illegal kickbacks paid to plaintiffs in shareholder class-action suits.

Civil RICO cases are difficult to litigate because of the layered requirements to prove a claim, legal experts told Reuters. Plaintiffs have to show not only that fraud has occurred, but that there was "this superstructure on top of the fraud claims" – that the fraud itself was part of a pattern of activity that happened for an extended period of time, said lawyer Jeffrey Grell.

"There are so many points at which a claim can fail," Texas A&M University law professor Randy Gordon said.

Even if the cases fizzle in court, several of the law firm defendants say the lawsuits are succeeding in harming their business, including due to the high cost of mounting their defense. The lineup of defense firms in the pending cases includes Blank Rome; Hueston Hennigan; Jenner & Block; Kobre & Kim; Milbank; Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman; and Williams & Connolly.

Liakas Law, a personal injury firm in New York and New Jersey, had an attorney turn down an already-accepted job offer after it was sued by Roosevelt Road and other insurers, firm spokesperson Hank Sheinkopf said. The firm has denied the allegations, which include staging trip-and-fall accidents and recruiting construction workers to fake or exaggerate injuries.

Sheinkopf said rivals have also tried to use the racketeering allegations to lure clients away from the Liakas firm.

"Defending multiple racketeering lawsuits in federal court is extraordinarily expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive," Sheinkopf said. "The allegations also carry obvious reputational consequences regardless of whether they are ultimately dismissed."

Also on Billable Hours' radar this week…

- A former Skadden deal lawyer described transitioning from a legal career to running a startup selling electric tooth flossers.

- Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook disclosed spending almost $1.2 million related to fighting President Donald Trump to fire her over mortgage fraud allegations she says ​are untrue.

- Reuters columnist Sara Randazzo interviewed Diversity Lab founder Caren Ulrich Stacy on what forced the organization to shutter and why its longtime law firm partners have mostly remained silent.

- Plaintiffs lawyers could face steeper hurdles pursuing class action settlement fees in some cases.

- A new ruling in New York federal court outlines one of the challenges for plaintiffs seeking legal fees in successful lawsuits against the federal government.

Read More:

‘It sucks.’ Students pan law firms’ rushed recruiting

Kentucky plaintiffs' lawyers spar in novel antitrust case

Settlement administrator JND faces judge’s scrutiny in US real estate class action