Meet Philip H. Lo, an insurance defense lawyer with the prominent law firm Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, a firm devoted primarily to representing the interests of insurance companies and their clients.

Recently, Lo unsuccessfully tried to curtail free speech by requesting that a California court bar a wronged car collector from sharing online photos of a Land Rover Defender. Defenders, classic Land Rovers renowned for their rugged appeal, boast a loyal fan base among Jeep enthusiasts and adventurers who cherish these vehicles for their off-road capabilities and iconic appearances in safari excursions and James Bond films.

The photos came from a court-mandated car inspection, part of a fraud and breach of contract lawsuit against a car restoration shop. Instead of returning a meticulously restored Defender, the rogue shop delivered a different, dilapidated vehicle: rusted, inoperable, and entirely unsuitable.

Enter Phil Lo and his colleagues at Gordon Rees, who attempted to impose a protective order on the aggrieved customer while being aware of their clients’ alleged scheme to deceive the court and the plaintiffs.

Chad Ullery, the defrauded customer, described Lo’s actions as “an evil, ill-conceived attempt by Phil Lo to file a baseless motion to prevent the facts from reaching the crooked shop’s customer base.” Lo’s legal maneuvering aimed to prevent public exposure of his client’s activities. Yet, ultimately, Lo failed. Sources familiar with the underlying litigation suggest that Lo has been driving up legal costs through poorly crafted motions and delay tactics, benefiting from Liberty Mutual’s (the insurance firm in question) deep pockets. Unfortunately, such practices are hardly uncommon in insurance defense law, where legal expenses are often inflated by unscrupulous law firms paid by insurance companies.

Lo, a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (now UC Law), recently found himself the subject of a California State Bar complaint and an ethics investigation. Known for his stalling tactics, Lo seems to be in league with the restoration shop Defenders Northwest, LLC, based in Gig Harbor, Washington. Ullery finds it ironic that Defenders Northwest once paraded the “restored” car at the prestigious SEMA show in Las Vegas. Now, that same company seeks to block the car’s rightful owners from sharing the results of an inspection—a situation that Ullery has labeled “a theater of the grotesque.”

According to Bill Brown, an expert witness, the Defender “was undrivable” and “essentially built from rusted out scrap parts.” On November 1, California Judge Deborah C. Servino ruled against Lo’s motion for a protective order. In her decision, Judge Servino noted that “Defendants have not made a factual showing that any information obtained during the vehicle inspection or discovery implicates any protectable interest or dissemination of any information to the public would result in injury.” She emphasized that the defense offered only vague references to “privacy rights” and “confidential commercial information” without concrete details or legitimate grounds. As a result, the court denied the motion, reinforcing a stance favoring transparency and free speech.

The owners of Defenders Northwest have continued to involve Lo in tactics that, according to court filings, seem designed to mislead both the court and Liberty Mutual while maximizing legal costs. According to these documents, Lo’s strategy appears to prioritize profit over the pursuit of justice, with little regard for the implications of free speech. For Ullery, this latest attempt to muzzle public discourse about consumer fraud has failed—and underscores a pattern of troubling behavior that has ensnared multiple alleged victims.

Over 200 photos depicting a decrepit frame and scattered parts capture the supposed “restoration.” Ullery claims Lo and his clients presented this rusted shell as the product of a seven-year, $200,000 restoration—a vehicle they once showcased at one of the world’s premier auto shows.

In a democracy, a free press is indispensable. Courts must continue rejecting ill-conceived attempts to stifle speech and champion policies that empower journalists to expose deceit and protect consumers. Lawyers who help conceal fraud are not merely zealous defenders; they risk crossing into becoming cohorts of their rogue clients, as appears to be the case with Phil Lo.

By attempting to infringe upon the right to free speech, such attorneys tarnish their profession and undermine public trust.

Free speech and a vigilant press are essential tools for safeguarding society from exploitation, offering a voice to those marginalized by fraudsters and corporate titans.