Having a Lawyer on Speed-Dial

[tomharkness]

I have been looking at the legal groups that provide legal support for the CHL and legal gun owners. I once had a program that was referred to as a "prepaid legal". When I needed it the most, it failed me miserably. I lost 'big time' with that group. However, the groups that offer legal protection for gun owners and CHL are a lot different.

First, you have to understand how Attorneys think. There is no right or wrong, there is only the side that pays them to act. They do not like to lose money any more than you do. I was actually told by the prepaid legal group that I could not afford to be innocent. Most Trial Attorneys in Texas cannot stand the Castle Doctrine because, "it does not allow for adequate debate in open court" (at your expense). More to the point, it puts a damper on the Attorney getting his/her fair share of the loot that the bad guy was trying to get when you stopped him.

Second, you need to understand how these CHL protection groups work. These groups realize that they will be loosing money to the fact that the Castle Doctrine protects you from liability if you are justified. By charging you a monthly (or annual dues), and calling it a retainer, they have the potential of making even more money. CHL's and Legal gun owners are very UNLIKELY to use their guns unless it is a "Last Resort Option". Therefore, they stand to gain by providing a membership that is a “Retainer” to those that probably don't need it (like an insurance company).

More importantly, they make money without ever having to take time to go before a judge where, in the absence of the Castle Doctrine, they would have to charge you a phenomenal retainer, tell you that you can't afford to be innocent, make you believe that a first offense will be negligible punishment if you plead "nolo contendere" (so that they don't have to do any more work that they already have), and then bug you 'ad nauseam' to get you to pay the rest of the bill.

Third, these groups are mostly CHL and Legal Gun owners themselves (i.e. they have a dog in the fight). This means that they are not just willing to fight for your rights, but their rights as well. To make it more efficient, the group that I am with sends me updates on legal cases, law changes, and other advise on a monthly basis. This helps me to know more about what I should or should not do. It makes me even less of a risk factor for the group by keeping me informed. After watching the Zimmerman/Martin case in Florida and comparing it to the information that I get from this group that I am with, I can clearly see and understand what is going wrong. I can actually follow where the mistakes were made (and continue to be made).


For reasons above, I go ahead and pay into the group. It really is not that much and I have been in front of a judge a few times already because of an x-wife. So I know the value of having someone in your corner before you need it. In fact, I believe that having them in my corner ‘pre-incident’ has helped me make decisions that have prevented an incident in the first place.

Tom

[The Annoyed Man]

So, which group is it?

[tomharkness]

So, which group is it?

Wasn't sure I could put it on the site. I have been punished severely for putting that information on other sites. I am not trying to sell the group (Though I actually do sell the group) but pointing out that they actually provide a great service for the cost.

[fickman]

I once had a program that was referred to as a "prepaid legal". When I needed it the most, it failed me miserably.

I've been given that sales pitch and resisted. Is your story one you can share?

[AEA]

IBTL!

[tomharkness]

I once had a program that was referred to as a "prepaid legal". When I needed it the most, it failed me miserably.

I've been given that sales pitch and resisted. Is your story one you can share?

The PrePaid Legal story: I had to go through a child custody issue. I had sole custody of all my (4) children up until my youngest had the bright idea to go and live with her mother. She was only 3 when she came to live with me.

When her mother tricked her into signing the papers to live with her, the battle was on. I contacted PrePaid Legal and they gave me a number of an attorney in my area from the group. He took the case because it was required in his contract. After that, trying to get hold of him was like pulling teeth. In court he started by standing up and asking the judge to relieve him of the case. It was denied. After that he simply made no effort to do anything for me. When it started to look like I was going to go to jail for a while, I dismissed him and took over for myself. I managed to get the contempt charges dropped. However, I lost custody of my 15 year old child to a woman that had not seen her since she was 3 and was married to a convicted sex offender. I lost mostly because I had no experience in law.

When I contacted PrePaid Legal about it, they told me, "We don't have any control over what the attorney does, we just assign them to the case". What happens after that is not their problem. But I was welcome to file a complaint.

As for the CHL group that I am with now, they are not prepaid legal. They give me a private number to call and talk with an attorney... not a person that will find one for me. This group makes sure that I get monthly updates on legal issues that concern me and my CHL (and Instructor rating).

[tomharkness]

IBTL!

I don't understand the IBTL thing. What does that mean? Was I not supposed to talk about the legal stuff here ether?

[JP171]

it means "in before the lock" there have been quite a few threads about legal services, this looks like your first post and throwing an advertisement as a firs post is kinda frowned upon here, specially when you start a new thread to cover a thread that is already in existance

[tomharkness]

it means "in before the lock" there have been quite a few threads about legal services, this looks like your first post and throwing an advertisement as a firs post is kinda frowned upon here, specially when you start a new thread to cover a thread that is already in existance

I haven't been on in about a year...maybe two. Been busy. Sometimes it is difficult to find where they topic has already been covered. Also, after looking at the main page, I would venture to guess that the entire website should be locked and shut down based on that logic... looks like it has all been covered.

BTW: That is why I did not post the name of either legal sites that I was talking about.

Question: Just because the subject has already been covered in the past, why would it be prohibited for someone to put in their two cents. I know that it might be like beating a dead horse, but it means someone that is beating the horse. I think that it might be offensive to your guest to tell them that the topic is no longer relevant when you are tired of hearing about it. It just seems a bit "arrogant" to me.

I am not trying to be rude, and I apologize if it sounds that way, but it just seems to me that a topic should be ended when no one has any more to put into the topic and not when someone with power thinks it should end... you know, like Chuck U. Schumer?

[longtooth]

IANAL so:
Charles will weigh in on this one & decide.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It's not a matter of the subject matter having been discussed before, it's the fact that every single pre-paid legal thread becomes a sales pitch for one or more of the firms offering "programs." We've had people sign up from these firms just to pitch their programs in direct violation of the Forum rules.

You didn't mention a firm and I appreciate that, but the thread will become a sales pitch even if you don't ever disclose the firm.

As for your Chuck Schumer comment well . . . yes, you most definitely are trying to be rude. Stop.

Chas.