Texas Law Shield users

[Tomservo92]

Personally, I think you're try to make an issue out of nothing. Like I said, it's a retainer fee and they are obligated to provide legal services in return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasRedneck]

I always find it interesting when new members jump straight into this thread asking about "proof" of the validity of TLS, etc. No matter what they're told, they're always asking for more - almost as if they are trying to raise doubt about the company.

#1 - The actual incidents in which a CHL holder is involved in a shooting are VERY small in this state, which I take as a good thing.

#2 - Texas is pretty pro-gun, so if someone IS involved in a shooting and were even close to being "in the right", odds are that there won't be charges brought against them. That means TLS won't even have to become involved beyond some nominal level.

Now, NONE of the above means anything if there IS a question as to the validity of the use of DF - or if they've shot someone with clout. THAT is where TLS will really come into play, and they know that. That means they can spread that potential cost out over a large number of customers, take care of any costs and still make a nice profit. That's the way insurance works.

So....it really doesn't matter much about what I or anyone else thinks of their service - it's up to you to decide whether you want to go KNOWINGLY "bare" with NO coverage, or have at least some representation you can count on, even if it's nothing more than a stall tactic until you can line up a better attorney (should you decide you don't like what they're doing). For $120/year, that's pretty cheap peace of mind, IMO.

 

[erratadata]

Well stated!

 

[inceptor]

I always find it interesting when new members jump straight into this thread asking about "proof" of the validity of TLS, etc. No matter what they're told, they're always asking for more - almost as if they are trying to raise doubt about the company.

#1 - The actual incidents in which a CHL holder is involved in a shooting are VERY small in this state, which I take as a good thing.

#2 - Texas is pretty pro-gun, so if someone IS involved in a shooting and were even close to being "in the right", odds are that there won't be charges brought against them. That means TLS won't even have to become involved beyond some nominal level.

Now, NONE of the above means anything if there IS a question as to the validity of the use of DF - or if they've shot someone with clout. THAT is where TLS will really come into play, and they know that. That means they can spread that potential cost out over a large number of customers, take care of any costs and still make a nice profit. That's the way insurance works.

So....it really doesn't matter much about what I or anyone else thinks of their service - it's up to you to decide whether you want to go KNOWINGLY "bare" with NO coverage, or have at least some representation you can count on, even if it's nothing more than a stall tactic until you can line up a better attorney (should you decide you don't like what they're doing). For $120/year, that's pretty cheap peace of mind, IMO.

100% agree

 

[Dredge]

I always find it interesting when new members jump straight into this thread asking about "proof" of the validity of TLS, etc. No matter what they're told, they're always asking for more - almost as if they are trying to raise doubt about the company.

#1 - The actual incidents in which a CHL holder is involved in a shooting are VERY small in this state, which I take as a good thing.

#2 - Texas is pretty pro-gun, so if someone IS involved in a shooting and were even close to being "in the right", odds are that there won't be charges brought against them. That means TLS won't even have to become involved beyond some nominal level.

Now, NONE of the above means anything if there IS a question as to the validity of the use of DF - or if they've shot someone with clout. THAT is where TLS will really come into play, and they know that. That means they can spread that potential cost out over a large number of customers, take care of any costs and still make a nice profit. That's the way insurance works.

So....it really doesn't matter much about what I or anyone else thinks of their service - it's up to you to decide whether you want to go KNOWINGLY "bare" with NO coverage, or have at least some representation you can count on, even if it's nothing more than a stall tactic until you can line up a better attorney (should you decide you don't like what they're doing). For $120/year, that's pretty cheap peace of mind, IMO.

+1!
For those that doubt the validity of their practice, quality and really inexpensive retainer fee, call around and see how much attorneys can cost should you cold call their office and tell them "I was just involved in a shooting" and see what they charge.
To put it into perspective...I think my health insurance is expensive as hell and then I see patients who's hospital bills hit the $100K mark for a procedure and 4 days in the hospital. That monthly "what if fee" ain't so much all of a sudden.

 

[RickLovesBacon]

If your looking for a testimonial, I doubt you will get it. No is ever going to want to publicly admit that were forced to defend themselves in a lethal manner.

Sent from the Bacon isle at your local grocery store.

 

[CitizenSeven]

Interestingly enough, if you search the State Bar of Texas for Texas Law shield, you only get one hit (State Bar of Texas | Advanced Search  | Richard W. Carter). While this gentleman may be a fine lawyer, none of his practice areas (ADR, Entertainment, Labor-Employment, Non-Profits) seem to this non-lawyer as being particularly pertinent to a potential CHL defense case. One would think that since they imply (at least during the sales pitch I was at) that there's a vast network of lawyers at your beck and call should the need arise, the state bar of texas would return a few more hits for their firm.

 

[TexasRedneck]

C7....are you here ONLY to try to damage this company by inferring things?? My take has always been that lacking any information to the contrary, a company's statements/claims should be taken at face value. I certainly wouldn't make my ONLY comments on a board negative to the company - because some might take that as libel...and THAT can get expensive.

 

[CitizenSeven]

C7....are you here ONLY to try to damage this company by inferring things?? My take has always been that lacking any information to the contrary, a company's statements/claims should be taken at face value. I certainly wouldn't make my ONLY comments on a board negative to the company - because some might take that as libel...and THAT can get expensive.

Well, as the old saying goes "Trust, but verify". Someone suggested looking them up on the state bar. I did. I posted the results. The only inferences I made were that the State Bar of Texas website was a reliable source of information about law firms and/or lawyers, which seems reasonable to me but YMMV, and a bit of puzzlement about the areas of expertise for the one lawyer that was returned from such a search. Maybe there is a logical explanation, and I would love to hear an alternate interpretation, but the results are what they are. Verify them for yourself. Type "Texas Law Shield" at the TexasBar.com site. I tried to link it, but the URL doesn't include search terms. I don't see how that could be construed as libel, since I am using the information that is provided by the Bar Association in a very straight-forward search. I'm not inventing anything, or making any assertions that can't be independently verified.

I also looked up their website (Who We Are). If you notice, there's a total of four people listed there, only two of which are specifically labeled "attorneys". There's no mention that I could see of the lawyer that I linked above which the Texas Bar site returns as being part of TLS. Perhaps it's an error of some kind, but it strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps TLS should provide a list of lawyers who do work for them/are associated with them by geographic area. I mean, wouldn't you like to know before hand who your lawyer will be if tragedy strikes? Couldn't that possibly affect your decision whether the service they provide is worthwhile?

 

[winchster]

I mean, wouldn't you like to know before hand who your lawyer will be if tragedy strikes? Couldn't that possibly affect your decision whether the service they provide is worthwhile?

So long as they're providing an attorney, who cares? ANY attorney is better than no attorney, or worse, self representation. Ever think that maybe the attorneys that are a part of this confederation have other practices that aren't related to TLS? Like, xyz law firm, and they're contracted as part of the group.

 

[inceptor]

Well, as the old saying goes "Trust, but verify". Someone suggested looking them up on the state bar. I did. I posted the results. The only inferences I made were that the State Bar of Texas website was a reliable source of information about law firms and/or lawyers, which seems reasonable to me but YMMV, and a bit of puzzlement about the areas of expertise for the one lawyer that was returned from such a search. Maybe there is a logical explanation, and I would love to hear an alternate interpretation, but the results are what they are. Verify them for yourself. Type "Texas Law Shield" at the TexasBar.com site. I tried to link it, but the URL doesn't include search terms. I don't see how that could be construed as libel, since I am using the information that is provided by the Bar Association in a very straight-forward search. I'm not inventing anything, or making any assertions that can't be independently verified.

I also looked up their website (Who We Are). If you notice, there's a total of four people listed there, only two of which are specifically labeled "attorneys". There's no mention that I could see of the lawyer that I linked above which the Texas Bar site returns as being part of TLS. Perhaps it's an error of some kind, but it strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps TLS should provide a list of lawyers who do work for them/are associated with them by geographic area. I mean, wouldn't you like to know before hand who your lawyer will be if tragedy strikes? Couldn't that possibly affect your decision whether the service they provide is worthwhile?

Are you just trying to convince yourself that you will be ripped off or are you trying to convince us to drop the service?

It sounds to me like you think you would be better off on you own. I would go for it then.

 

[RickLovesBacon]

So long as they're providing an attorney, who cares? ANY attorney is better than no attorney, or worse, self representation. Ever think that maybe the attorneys that are a part of this confederation have other practices that aren't related to TLS? Like, xyz law firm, and they're contracted as part of the group.

Agreed. From talking to a Rep the day I signed on they deal with a network of lawyers as part of their group. This aids in dealing with someone that would be local to you. Having your own attorney, even though you may not know who they are is way better than a court appointed attorney any day.

Also how will you have time to do research on any lawyer in case of a emergency that requires a fast response?

 

[breakingcontact]

They have pretty girls at the gun shows. We should trust them.

 

[RickLovesBacon]

They have pretty girls at the gun shows. We should trust them.

Yup they sure do.

Sent from the Bacon isle at your local grocery store.

 

[txinvestigator]

Interestingly enough, if you search the State Bar of Texas for Texas Law shield, you only get one hit (State Bar of Texas |Â*Advanced Search Â*|Â*Richard W. Carter). While this gentleman may be a fine lawyer, none of his practice areas (ADR, Entertainment, Labor-Employment, Non-Profits) seem to this non-lawyer as being particularly pertinent to a potential CHL defense case. One would think that since they imply (at least during the sales pitch I was at) that there's a vast network of lawyers at your beck and call should the need arise, the state bar of texas would return a few more hits for their firm.

If you dont want the service dont get the service. Texas Law Shield is run by Walker, Rice andnWisdom PC. Any cursory search of the Law Shield web site would tell you that.

State Bar of Texas | Advanced Search  | Thomas Edwin Walker

Who We Are

Bar search them in the find the attorney section.

 

[GrandpaOf18]

I signed up for the service, it's insurance, and I hope I never need them, the fact that they cover my Wife as well if she ever has an incident at home, even though she is not a CHL holder is great, and they cover every state our children are spread out in. I work for attorneys, and did run it by them, and they said that it is insurance, and will be there if I need them. That's all I need.

 

[CitizenSeven]

The whole point of my posts is to find/share third party information about TLS, which is sorely lacking. That appeared to be the purpose of the OP as well, in order to make an informed decision about the value of their service. One thing I find interesting is that according to some accounts, CHL instructors who allow TLS to give presentations get a slice of the fees. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with such arrangements, but I do have serious issues with it not being disclosed. To me, that is a breach of trust and a conflict of interest. Of course, it's legal to do so, but it certainly calls into question motivation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything. If paying your annual fee makes you feel good and gives you peace of mind, then great, have at it. I also wouldn't try to dissuade someone from using their tiger-repelling rock: if it makes you feel good and you find value in it, go for it. After all, nothing is worth anything but what someone is willing to pay. Those on the fence about such a service may find some of my observations useful, if only the counter replies.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Actually, I didn't find anything of what you had to "say" useful, C7 - and there's nothing personal there. Every time someone answers one of your (rather weak) comments, you come back with another one. That generally indicates "agenda" to me, because most folks will outline their issues in one post, then deal with the comments from there. You keep trying to add to 'em....... FWIW, my most recent class had a presentation from the folks, and our instructor laughingly commented that he "gets a fee" from anyone that signs up - and that we should make our decisions based on the information provided. He also mentioned that he didn't have it, because he had other policies in place to give him similar coverage. Someone asked him why he let 'em make the presentation anyways, and he replied that in his opinion, it WAS an important facet of carrying a firearm, and he felt it drives home the point of how important it is to THINK before drawing a firearm.

 

[Dredge]

C7, folks give reason for using TLS and you counter. 7 posts and all are counters to using TLS.
Maybe go to "Introductions" on this forum and introduce yourself as then you would have one post that would hopefully not be negative in nature.

 

[erratadata]

I agree. Stirring up a pot of water.