Prevost Law Firm’s Solar Lawsuits: Claims, Arbitration, and Fees

Prevost Law Firm is a McKinney, Texas practice that files solar lawsuits and arbitration claims on behalf of homeowners who say they were misled when they bought and financed a residential solar system. The firm, led by attorney Neal Prevost, focuses on hidden dealer fees, exaggerated savings promises, failed installations, and disputes with the lenders that funded the loans. It handles cases individually through arbitration rather than through class actions, and reports that most matters settle before a hearing.¹

Who Prevost Represents and Who It Doesn’t

The firm takes cases from homeowners who purchased a residential solar system. It does not accept cases involving solar leases or Power Purchase Agreements.¹ If your solar arrangement is a lease or PPA, this firm is not a fit, regardless of what went wrong.

Prevost is licensed in Texas and North Carolina and says it is authorized to practice in federal courts and arbitration proceedings across 46 states.²³ The Texas bar record shows no public disciplinary history.⁴

One other filter matters at intake. The firm declines cases that would be routed through American Arbitration Association arbitration, citing administrative fees of $10,000 to $20,000 that it says are unsustainable under its fee model.¹ Which arbitration forum applies depends on the language in your solar loan contract.

The Claims the Firm Brings

Prevost’s cases cluster around a handful of recurring problems in residential solar sales and financing.

Hidden dealer fees. Solar loans often include markups paid to the installer, ranging from 10% to 30% of the project cost and sometimes exceeding 50%, folded into the loan balance without clear disclosure. The firm argues these amounts inflate what the homeowner actually owes.²

Misrepresented savings. Sales pitches that promise drastically lower electric bills, overstate the value of the federal solar tax credit, or misdescribe how the system will perform. Some homeowners end up paying more for electricity after installation than they did before.²

System failures and installer bankruptcies. When an installer abandons a project or goes bankrupt, homeowners can be left with equipment that doesn’t work, voided warranties, and systems that never passed inspection, while still owing on the loan.⁵⁶

Lien disputes. Solar lenders sometimes file UCC-1 liens against a homeowner’s property, which can complicate or block a home sale.¹

The legal theories behind the claims include state deceptive trade practices statutes, breach of contract, and the FTC Holder Rule. The Holder Rule allows a consumer to assert claims against the lender that financed a purchase when the seller engaged in misconduct. That matters in solar cases because many installers have gone out of business, and the lender is often the only defendant left with money to pay.¹

How Cases Move Through Arbitration

Most residential solar contracts contain mandatory arbitration clauses, so Prevost does not file class actions. Each homeowner’s case is handled individually in private arbitration. When the firm has many similar claims against the same lender, it may coordinate them as a mass arbitration to increase settlement pressure.¹

Intake starts with a free claim review. If the firm takes the case, the client signs a fee agreement and provides the loan agreement, the solar installation contract, and a completed intake questionnaire.⁷ The firm then drafts a demand letter setting out the legal arguments and sends it to the lender, which typically has 60 days to respond. If there is no resolution, the firm files for arbitration with a forum such as JAMS. From intake to a hearing, the process can run several months to well over a year, depending on scheduling, disputes over arbitration fees, and whether the loan is sold to another lender during the case.⁸

The firm also says it represents individual consumers in the Solar Mosaic bankruptcy proceedings, which is a separate track from arbitration against a solvent lender.¹

What Clients Pay

Prevost uses what it calls a hybrid fee model. The client pays an upfront retainer to cover early costs such as staff time and filing fees, and the firm absorbs the rest of the financial risk. The firm describes the split as roughly 25% client risk and 75% firm risk, with total client fees capped at $10,000. If the case is lost, the client owes nothing beyond the retainer. If the case is won, the firm refunds the retainer and keeps a portion of the recovery.⁹

Many solar contracts include prevailing-party clauses that can require the lender to pay the homeowner’s legal fees if the homeowner wins.¹ Whether that applies to your case depends on the contract you signed.

Reported Results and Their Limits

The firm says about 80% to 90% of its solar cases settle before an arbitration hearing.¹ The publicly highlighted example involves clients Bart and Diana Daniels: the firm reports securing full cancellation of a $73,590 solar loan and a $28,493 refund of payments already made, with the clients keeping the panels.²

Two caveats matter before you rely on those numbers. First, the firm states that most individual settlements are covered by nondisclosure agreements required by lenders, which limits how much detail it can share.¹ Second, the results are self-reported. In a JustAnswer exchange where a consumer asked whether Prevost was legitimate, a third-party attorney advised treating the firm’s claim of “never losing a case” with caution and verifying credentials through the State Bar of Texas and independent reviews before retaining it.¹⁰

The Center for Responsible Lending noted in a 2024 report that forced arbitration clauses in solar contracts are a barrier to transparency and accountability, because outcomes stay confidential and cannot be appealed.¹¹ That confidentiality cuts in the same direction for anyone trying to independently evaluate what Prevost has actually delivered for clients.

Why These Cases Exist

The problems Prevost describes match what federal regulators and state attorneys general have documented. In August 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published an issue spotlight on solar financing flagging dealer fees of 10% to 30% or more hidden in loan balances, misleading presentations of the federal 30% solar tax credit, and payment structures that spike if borrowers don’t make a large lump-sum payment within 18 months.¹²

State enforcement has followed the same pattern. In March 2024, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Solar Mosaic, and Dividend Solar Finance, alleging they collected roughly $35 million in hidden dealer fees from nearly 5,000 Minnesota borrowers since 2017, inflating costs by 15% to 54%.¹³ Virginia sued Fifth Third Bank in February 2026 over more than 530 state solar loans, alleging hidden fees of 15% to 16% and misleading savings claims tied to Power Home Solar, which filed for bankruptcy in 2022.¹⁴ In March 2026, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Attyx (formerly SUNco), its two CEOs, and lending partners Solar Mosaic and WebBank over what the state called a $275 million bait-and-switch scheme targeting seniors and low-income homeowners.¹⁵

None of that enforcement recovers money for an individual homeowner directly, and none of it changes the arbitration clause in a private solar loan. It does show that the claims Prevost brings on behalf of individual clients track the same conduct that regulators have already found actionable.

1
Prevost Law Firm. FAQ
2
Prevost Law Firm. Home
3
Martindale. Mr. Jon Neal Prevost
4
State Bar of Texas. Member Directory – Jon Neal Prevost
5
Prevost Law Firm. Testimonials
6
Prevost Law Firm Blog. Can I Sue Titan Solar
7
Prevost Law Firm Blog. Client Intake
8
Prevost Law Firm Blog. Prevost Law Firm Arbitration Process – What to Expect
9
Prevost Law Firm Blog. Why Retainer
10
JustAnswer. Prevost Law Firm – Scam or Legit
11
Center for Responsible Lending. The Shady Side of Solar Financing
12
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Issue Spotlight – Solar Financing
13
Office of Minnesota Attorney General. Solar Lending Lawsuit
14
Office of the Virginia Attorney General. Commonwealth v. Fifth Third Bank Complaint
15
Office of the New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Sues Home Solar Power Company and Lenders