Texas Law Shield users

[CitizenSeven]

Well, as I pointed out, the news would only report the bare essentials: Defendant <y> represented by TLS. That's independent of whatever those two may or may not say to the press, especially in something as high profile as a justifiable shooting. Hell, court records show that, and many of those are searchable. Such records have the sort of pertinent information (defendant and counsel) which is the kind of thing I'm looking for.

What makes it suspicious, in my mind at least, is when disclosure of such a financial arrangement is not made as was the case in the class I took. As I said previously, I have no problems with such arrangements, but I do have a problem when they aren't forthrightly disclosed. That is, in my mind, necessary information to judge the merits of the product, as well as whatever comments the instructor may make about the product. It's the difference between say, Consumer Reports and Ford making claims about a specific model car. Who do you trust more, someone with no dog in the fight, or someone trying to sell (or financially benefit from the sale) of a product? At least with Ford, we know that they want to sell their cars. Someone astroturfing, or serving as an instructor in a mandatory class for a license who doesn't disclose the relationship, not so much. Maybe you don't think it's tawdry, as they are under no legal obligation to disclose, but personally, I like to know little tidbits like that.

 

[inceptor]

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get any kind of reliable and verifiable information in the gun culture, in my experience to date. It seems that a large amount of internet activity is selling goods of dubious quality, or fanboys arguing over the merits of a given product/service over another (say Mossburg vs Remington, or Glock vs Sig as examples). In a word, sleazy. And that, unfortunately, seems to be the reason that gun culture and 2nd amendment rights are so successfully being marginalized today.

smh

Sleazy??? Because we discuss the merits/likes/dislike over our choice of guns? Did I miss something here?

Nothing anyone says matters, you continue to rant. You remind me of my 2nd wife. I'm damn glad she hates Texas and is 1200 miles from here.

 

[inceptor]

Well, as I pointed out, the news would only report the bare essentials: Defendant <y> represented by TLS. That's independent of whatever those two may or may not say to the press, especially in something as high profile as a justifiable shooting. Hell, court records show that, and many of those are searchable. Such records have the sort of pertinent information (defendant and counsel) which is the kind of thing I'm looking for.

Why would the news report about TLS? As stated earlier it is not a law firm but an network. This has been stated more than a few times here.

 

[RickLovesBacon]

For all intents and purposes C7 if your unhappy with the lack of info just cancel your membership. Making a debate out of nothing is just annoying, when others are just trying to be as helpful as possible.

Sent from the Bacon isle at your local grocery store.

 

[Elbe]

C7, individual attorneys are licensed by the state to practice law. not law firms. When searching the state bar site, www.texasbar.com, look by attorney name to verify that someone is licensed to practice law in Texas. All of the attorneys listed for Texas (Mr. Walker, Mr. Rice, Ms. Byington, Mr. Evans) on the TLS site are on there with "eligible to practice" status, which is what you want to see and know before doing business with any attorney.

 

[CitizenSeven]

Yes, Elbe, I realize that law firms are not licensed, but they are part of the demographic information at texasbar.com, and you can search on them. Doing such a search with "Texas Law Shield" yields exactly one hit State Bar of Texas |Â*Find A Lawyer Â*|Â*Richard W. Carter. If you'll notice, his areas of practice are listed as "ADR, Labor-Employment, Entertainment, Non-Profits". While he is an "eligible to practice" lawyer, and he may very well be an excellent attorney, I would think that in a potential CHL case you'd want a criminal defense attorney. Remember, after a shooting, no matter how legitimate it may be, the best thing to do and the advice any lawyer will give you is to say nothing to the responding officers about the incident. You may say something in confusion/adrenaline/fear that can and will be used against you in a court of law. Now, I don't see how you could not be arrested at that point: there's a dead body, you have a warm gun, and you invoke your 5A rights. You are now a criminal suspect in a homicide, hopefully eventually exonerated as justified but that part comes much later. Do you really want a lawyer specializing in Entertainment law representing you in such a matter? He's the only lawyer that I could find listed at the texas state bar site that is associated with TLS, so he is part of their network of lawyers. And remember, per the contract:

"“Contracting Attorney” – A licensed attorney that Texas Law Shield, LLP contracts with to provide legal services for the Legal Service Contract Holder under this Legal Service Contract." and "Legal Service Contract Holder may at all times retain counsel different than provided under this contract, however, Legal Service Contract Holder shall be responsible for all attorneys’ fees, cost and expenses of this different counsel and shall receive no reimbursement under this contract."
​

So, if you draw a lawyer from their network who you feel may not be the best to represent you, and you want another one, it's out of your pocket. Nowhere in the contract does it say you can choose anyone you want from their network, you just get a "contracting attorney" from them.

Now, if you look at the areas of practice for the principles, you'll see that Walker is a criminal defense attorney, but as listed on the bar site, none of the other are. Nowhere in the contract does it say Walker is going to represent you, rather a contracting attorney. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but I can't imagine he's going to travel to your location and pay for his own food/lodging when it doesn't stipulate that in the contract. I suppose if it's a high enough profile case he might, but he's under no obligation to do so. All TLS has to do is provide a "contracting attorney", with no promise expressed or implied. In other words, any attorney in their network who returns a green dot at the bar site (eligible to practice).

A list of their network lawyers isn't provided on their website, which I find odd. Such lists are generally available in medical insurance, and certainly to policy holders. You would think the contracting lawyers would want their names listed, as that could very well drive other business their way for non-CHL cases, which of course is going to be essentially 100% of every lawyers practice as witnessed by the dearth of any documented cases of CHL cases.

The closest common analogy I can see with this is a home maintenance contract with someone like American Home Shield or similar. In my experience, the level and quality of service can vary considerably, depending on which company they subcontract with at a given time for given specialties (plumbing, electrical, etc). In my experience with AHS, it seems that you find out that some subsystem component isn't covered due to maintenance issues or similar at inopportune times (100 degrees and AC out, etc), but your experience may be better.

 

[digitaltrip]

*smashes head against wall* x1000

Make it stop already!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[CitizenSeven]

What I tried to do was apply the six points listed as listed here:TexasCHLforum.com • View topic - Anyone using texas law shield?. They seem like good ideas to evaluate quality/worthiness of a legal service, but you may have different criteria/motivations. By my reckoning, TLS could, let us say, stand improvement in point 5 at the very least. YMMV. HAND.

 

[TheTexasTom]

C7, sorry - but your posts here are anything but those of someone asking honest questions. You come on here, toss accusations against a business, question everything about 'em - yet refuse to do ANY of your own research, wanting those here to do it FOR you. When they do....you challenge 'em on it.

Here's a dollar - kindly go buy a pair of dull scissors and cut your keyboard cord with it and put ALL of us outta our misery.

New Forum Member here.

Old, cranky, and over 30 years dealing with attorneys on various levels for business.

C7's comments, and requests for information are for the most part valid inquiries of a prudent person.

 

[GrandpaOf18]

Just one question C7, and then I'm done with this.

Since your mind was made up before you even posted your first post, and since posting about this was your only reason for joining TGT, why do you insist on trying to get others to think like you?

Never mind, analysis of your posts answer that question: Because you just want to bad mouth them because your sensitivities were hurt at your class and can't understand why everyone else doesn't think like you.

 

[CitizenSeven]

Thank you TheTexasTom for recognizing my good intentions in trying to make a fact-based prudent decision despite, apparently, my ability to communicate them to everyone successfully.

GrandpaOf18, it is precisely because my mind wasn't made up that I started posting here. I did something I rarely do at my CHS class: I panicked bought. I don't make excuses for myself, I was just plain stupid. It wasn't until after that I started doing research. Barndoor, horse, etc. I was hoping that my post facto research would validate the wisdom of my purchase. Given what I have been able to determine, and the responses here by certain members, let's just say that hasn't happened and leave it at that since, apparently, my inquiries and my fact-based evaluations offend so many.

 

[winchster]

A list of their network lawyers isn't provided on their website, which I find odd. Such lists are generally available in medical insurance, and...

Generally being the keyword. Not always.

certainly to policy holders.

Certainly, I am sure they would tell you if you're a member and CALL them and ask THEM.

 

[bwalker]

I think this has been a good discussion. I don't really see why folks are getting on C7's case. Some very good points have been discussed and I really don't see how C7 has been out of line in any way. Another old thread with good info on TLS may be worth reading as well:

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/texas-concealed-handgun-chl/28501-texas-law-shield.html

 

[ZX9RCAM]

/\/\/\....I have to agree, but what do I know.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Guess it's like anything else....generally speaking, when someone isn't sure about something, they ask their questions, they're answered, and everyone moves on. With this, it's been answer a question....then 2 more are asked....answer....couple more - all the while challenging what the previous answers are.

I've always found that when I have questions of a particular company, I contact THEM to get their response - that way, I've gotten it straight from the horse's mouth - which avoids me havin' to put up with what comes out the other end.

In a similar, vein, I switched insurance companies about 4 years ago based on my dissatisfaction w/USAA's business methods. I asked a few questions on a couple of boards, then contacted the companies I was considering directly to get THEIR input, including a senior VP at one in particular. Having done that, I made my choice with clear answers to my questions from those directly able to answer them, rather than from folks with little to no direct knowledge.

So, yeah - when I see stuff being asked that SHOULD be asked of a provider, I get suspicious.

 

[TheDan]

I wish I knew an alternative, but the more I dig into this, the less hopeful I am.

There are alternatives, but they are more expensive; other pre-paid legal services or having an attorney on retainer. From what I can tell, TLS is inexpensive because it has a very narrow focus. Other pre-paid legal services cover a broader range of legal issues and are priced accordingly. If you already have a pre-paid service that covers criminal defense then getting TLS would be pointless.

...and yeah, all of these pre-paid services are a type of insurance. You're paying a monthly or yearly fee and hoping you don't actually have to use it.

I think this has been a good discussion. I don't really see why folks are getting on C7's case.

ditto...

 

[Barry Green]

Just got back from the NRA show. Texas Law Shield has a booth there. I spent a bit of time with one of the attorneys (yes, at the booth is one of the actual attorneys you get on retainer). I asked some of the questions that have been raised here, such as "are there any testimonials" and "have you actually been called upon to defend users?" She said that yes, they've fielded hundreds of cases, and please, anyone who has questions, just call them. They'd be more than happy to answer anyone's specific concerns. She also said that their law firm is now exclusively devoted to handling firearms-related cases.

 

[inceptor]

Just got back from the NRA show. Texas Law Shield has a booth there. I spent a bit of time with one of the attorneys (yes, at the booth is one of the actual attorneys you get on retainer). I asked some of the questions that have been raised here, such as "are there any testimonials" and "have you actually been called upon to defend users?" She said that yes, they've fielded hundreds of cases, and please, anyone who has questions, just call them. They'd be more than happy to answer anyone's specific concerns. She also said that their law firm is now exclusively devoted to handling firearms-related cases.

Now THAT is doing your due diligence! Thanks for the info Barry.

 

[Charlie]

Just got back from the NRA show. Texas Law Shield has a booth there. I spent a bit of time with one of the attorneys (yes, at the booth is one of the actual attorneys you get on retainer). I asked some of the questions that have been raised here, such as "are there any testimonials" and "have you actually been called upon to defend users?" She said that yes, they've fielded hundreds of cases, and please, anyone who has questions, just call them. They'd be more than happy to answer anyone's specific concerns. She also said that their law firm is now exclusively devoted to handling firearms-related cases.

Damn, if the nay-sayers and whiners did that (called them), then how would we get 180+ posts on this thread?

 

[CitizenSeven]

I did manage to finally find one story about TLS: Texas Law Shield protects gun owners | News - Home. Interesting timing, judging by the story byline timestamp. Also interesting that a successful use of TLS services were related, without any attribution of course. I also found the story itself fascinating:

"We've had a client in the back of the squad car call the emergency hotline as he was being taken to jail and our attorney worked with the client in the car ride and eventually the officer turned around and figured the member was correct and turned around and dropped him off," said Evans, offering one example of how the program helps.
​

Perhaps police procedures have changed, or are different in Texas, and please, any LEOs chime in here, but according to my family members who are cops, arrested folks don't generally get to use their cell phones in the back of the car. Especially on a weapons violation. Nor have have free hands available to operate them. I have also never, ever heard of an LEO changing his mind after an arrest and while driving to jail. It's not impossible of course, it just strikes me as let's say unusual.