(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a

columnist for Reuters.)

By Jenna Greene

Oct 16 (Reuters) - In a bold legal U-turn, Uber

Technologies ( UBER ) is swerving from defense to offense, invoking the

federal racketeering law typically used against organized crime

to sue the very lawyers who've been suing it.

The ride-hailing giant in recent months has filed a series of

RICO suits against a dozen personal injury lawyers and firms in

New York, Florida, California and Pennsylvania. Uber ( UBER ) alleges

they schemed with medical providers and others to transform

low-value auto accident claims involving Uber ( UBER ) drivers into

million-dollar-plus lawsuits, to take advantage of the company's

hefty insurance policies.

It's a rare - though not unprecedented - legal strategy that

could mark a new frontier in how corporations push back against

the plaintiffs' bar.

Winning a RICO case can bring a big payoff: treble damages

plus attorneys' fees, though Uber ( UBER ) likely faces an uphill climb

to prevail. Civil racketeering claims require detailed evidence

of a pattern of unlawful acts committed by members of an

"enterprise" working toward a common purpose.

Even if Uber ( UBER ) ultimately falls short, it strikes me that the

company will have succeeded in sending a message: Sue us at your

peril.

Defendant Downtown LA Law Group said in an email that

Uber's ( UBER ) suit against it "represents a concerning effort to

undermine the rights of individuals and the attorneys who

advocate for them."

The other defendants, which include Simon & Simon in

Philadelphia; Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro, Moses & Halperin in

Manhattan; and the Law Group of South Florida in Miami, did not

respond to requests for comment.

The firms are not accused of working together; each lawsuit

stands alone. But the complaints all stem from a common

circumstance: Rideshare companies like Uber ( UBER ) are required to

carry higher insurance limits than ordinary drivers.

Uber's ( UBER ) liability coverage, which applies when a driver is on

the way to pick up a passenger or en route to the passenger's

destination, is $1 million in California, Florida and

Pennsylvania, according to the company. In New York State, it's

$1.25 million when a passenger is in the vehicle. Uber ( UBER ) says

approximately 45% of the fare of every Uber ( UBER ) ride in Los Angeles,

for example, goes to mandated insurance costs.

Uber ( UBER ) says scammers are well aware of this coverage, which

allegedly makes the company a target for fake personal injury

claims, inflated medical billing and even staged accidents.

"That kind of legal abuse drives up prices, harms accident

victims, and erodes the public's trust-so when we see fraud and

abuse occur on our platform, we will not hesitate to take action

to protect consumers and drivers," Uber ( UBER ) spokesperson Adam

Blinick said via email.

In each of the RICO suits, Uber ( UBER ) alleges plaintiffs' lawyers

funneled clients to "unscrupulous" medical providers. These

doctors, chiropractors and physical therapists, who are also

named as defendants in the suits, allegedly provided unnecessary

medical procedures to treat negligible or non-existent injuries,

creating false evidence of injuries to drive up the cost of

settling the cases.

In exchange, the medical providers got a steady stream of

patients and in some instances, the ability to charge premium

rates for their services, Uber ( UBER ) alleges, calling the arrangements

"a kickback."

In the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania last month, for example, Uber ( UBER ) alleged

plaintiffs' lawyers directed a network of medical providers to

perform procedures including spinal injections and radio

frequency ablations that "bear no relationship with any

underlying injury and are in most instances unnecessary,"

according to the 66-page complaint by lawyers from Perkins Coie.

The RICO allegations have caught the attention of other

lawyers in the plaintiffs' bar, who are looking on uneasily.

"I think part of Uber's ( UBER ) strategy here is a bit of lawfare,"

said Hani Habbas of Irvine, California-based HH Law Firm, who

has litigated injury cases against Uber ( UBER ) in the past but is not

involved in the RICO suits.

"RICO is a sledgehammer, when what's needed is a scalpel,"

he said. "Is the intention here to police fraud or suppress

valid claims?"

Uber ( UBER ) is not the first company to attempt to invoke RICO

against personal injury lawyers.

Tiger Joyce, president of the pro-business American Tort Reform

Association, said he believes the first successful case was in

2013, when CSX Transportation sued two attorneys and a doctor in

West Virginia, alleging that they conspired to fabricate

asbestos claims. A jury sided with CSX, which netted a $7.3

million payout for damages and legal fees.

Other recent cases have fallen short. For example, a federal

judge in Chicago in March dismissed a RICO suit by plastic pipe

maker JM Eagle against a plaintiffs' firm that had filed

hundreds of asbestos personal injury cases against it. The judge

ruled that JM Eagle failed to show that the injury lawyers,

asbestos plaintiffs and other witnesses were functioning as an

enterprise -- a "continuing unit" and sharing "a common purpose"

-- though the company has been given leave to amend its

complaint.

For corporations, "these are difficult cases to win, because

of the complexity and the requirement to prove an enterprise,"

Joyce told me. "They are not for the faint of heart."