TexasCHLforum.com

suthdj wrote:

Crossfire wrote:This is very timely for us, as we just broke ties with the gun store where we were teaching. They insisted that we had to let [pre-paid legal] make their pitch in our classes in order to use their classroom. We declined. So, we are moving back to the Roanoke Recreation Center, starting with our September class.

Gone full circle, I guess.

Yup, back to our roots, where they still love us!

joe817 wrote:

SRO1911 wrote:And our dear friend cj is up to his usual
Got a screen shot but can't seem to make it work.

Well, you're a big help! Just kidding!

Link? What''d he say? What'd he say?

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/cj-gris ... candidate/

Glockster wrote:

joe817 wrote:

SRO1911 wrote:And our dear friend cj is up to his usual
Got a screen shot but can't seem to make it work.

Well, you're a big help! Just kidding!

Link? What''d he say? What'd he say?

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/cj-gris ... candidate/

Thanks Glockster....I think.

rotor wrote:The issue of course should be whether [pre-paid legal] does or does not provide a needed service to those that decide to sign up for it's services ( I did) and I don't really care if a referral "fee" was given. This seems to be the standard for attorneys on everything and is considered "ethical" whereas for medical caregivers it is grounds for loss of license.

Actually, the issue IS how [pre-paid legal] gets their hooks into a classroom. That classroom is a captive audience, which is a good environment for sales.
I do care if a referral fee is provided as those fees tend to influence the people to whom the fee is provided. Just like I want to know if my investment adviser is paid for his services via flat fee or by recommending investment vehicles that he'll see a commission on. Basically I want all the information that I can get before making a decision.

I believe the instructors should be paid in a manner that doesn't make [pre-paid legal] (or similar) associations necessary for them to stay in business.

Reading the article, I spot several ways that you're NOT covered by [pre-paid legal] that run contrary to the sales-pitch that I was given in class...

glock27 wrote:If its a legal shoot. In a perfect world you wont need an attorney and in texas i believe your dismissed from civil liability. I believe.

Chances of using your handgun are astronomical. I personally dont find a need for such insurance. I think your more likely to go ahead and hire an attorney/financial advisor for retainer INCASE you win the lottery so that they can manage it all for you. Your chances of needing to use your gun are high. However i carry everyday. I carry as a means of protection to me amd my family and i also would say i carry as it is a sport or hobby. Or maybe even an artform!

Selling piece of mind is like selling air...

Ymmv

It's not a perfect world and I have sat in a courtroom as a defendant and listened to the worst possible lies about my character, etc so I know what it's like. There is never any way to know how a jury will vote and I have also been on a jury and know how easily swayed they can be. There are criminal and civil cases and I want protection in both. I spent the money on [pre-paid legal] knowing that I would probably never use it. I also buy flood insurance for my home even though I am not in the flood plain. I guess it all depends on your level of concern and for civil cases how deep are your pockets. The lottery would be nice to win but you have to buy a ticket first.

cb1000rider wrote:

rotor wrote:The issue of course should be whether [pre-paid legal] does or does not provide a needed service to those that decide to sign up for it's services ( I did) and I don't really care if a referral "fee" was given. This seems to be the standard for attorneys on everything and is considered "ethical" whereas for medical caregivers it is grounds for loss of license.

Actually, the issue IS how [pre-paid legal] gets their hooks into a classroom. That classroom is a captive audience, which is a good environment for sales.
I do care if a referral fee is provided as those fees tend to influence the people to whom the fee is provided. Just like I want to know if my investment adviser is paid for his services via flat fee or by recommending investment vehicles that he'll see a commission on. Basically I want all the information that I can get before making a decision.

I believe the instructors should be paid in a manner that doesn't make [pre-paid legal] (or similar) associations necessary for them to stay in business.

Reading the article, I spot several ways that you're NOT covered by [pre-paid legal] that run contrary to the sales-pitch that I was given in class...

When I took my course my instructor did not keep us captive during the [pre-paid legal] presentation. The assumption is that the instructor is allowing [pre-paid legal] to give their spiel just for the $$$. The instructor though may feel that [pre-paid legal] is a good service to offer. My instructor did not push either way so I don't know. I personally am glad that the service was offered to me and perhaps I am just a gullible nit-wit but I prefer having the availability of legal aid and I am glad it was offered. I actually did research the NRA plan as well and I can't say that I have ever seen anything good about it anywhere. I am sure NRA gets a nice kickback pushing that too, which is how all of these plans work and I don't fault them for doing it either. I realize that most on this board don't feel that way but I am not an attorney and I have been a defendant in court and it's no fun. Actually it is life altering and you never come out feeling the same way until you have been through a lawsuit. I really don't care what everyone else wants to do about [pre-paid legal]. I have yet to see anyone yet show me that [pre-paid legal] does not deliver on what they claim to provide. I just hope to never try to use them. It would seem to me though that if [pre-paid legal] didn't deliver that they would be the ones getting sued for breech of contract or whatever and not for a fee kickback scheme which is standard in the legal world. I sleep better at night though with the policy than without it.

rotor wrote: I spent the money on [pre-paid legal] knowing that I would probably never use it. I also buy flood insurance for my home even though I am not in the flood plain. I guess it all depends on your level of concern and for civil cases how deep are your pockets. The lottery would be nice to win but you have to buy a ticket first.

I have flood insurance too. I'm not in the flood plain. I'm aware that in order for my flood insurance to kick in, I believe more than one home in the immediate area also may be subject to similar flooding. That's the fine print. [pre-paid legal] has lots of fine print. Most of it I dug up myself and some of it ran contrary to parts of the sales-pitch.

And the deeper your pockets are, the more you should be concerned, not the opposite.

I might be interested in personal liability insurance as it relates to firearms also. However - what [pre-paid legal] told me that they would cover me for "any firearm related incident" (that's the the best of my recollection). Is that what you were told also? If so, that sure doesn't seem to be the case.

Furthermore, I know what my insurance companies financial rating is. With [pre-paid legal], I don't even know who is representing me. At the time, I couldn't even get a list.

In the case of an insurance service that provides litigation defense and that litigation is a matter of public record, how come those events are kept "private"?

Look, if CHL instructors feel passionately about it and think it's the right thing to do - I've not no problem with the way they run their business, especially if they're looking out for their clients. I have no issue with you having their service. I made a different choice, that's all. I do have an issue with the way they appear to gain what appears to be pretty much exclusive access to the classroom. And above that, I have an issue with what the sales guys are selling and you're actually buying - at least in my particular experience... If they're forthcoming about the financial arrangement with the instructor and fully disclose the corner cases, then it's just above board sales and nothing to see here.

rotor wrote:The issue of course should be whether [pre-paid legal] does or does not provide a needed service to those that decide to sign up for it's services ( I did) and I don't really care if a referral "fee" was given. This seems to be the standard for attorneys on everything and is considered "ethical" whereas for medical caregivers it is grounds for loss of license.

No, this absolutely is not the standard for attorneys! We cannot give a referral fee to anyone, attorney or non-attorney. We can share fees with a fellow attorney, but under very strict requirements that include, among other things, clear notice to our clients.

Chas.

rotor wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

rotor wrote:The issue of course should be whether [pre-paid legal] does or does not provide a needed service to those that decide to sign up for it's services ( I did) and I don't really care if a referral "fee" was given. This seems to be the standard for attorneys on everything and is considered "ethical" whereas for medical caregivers it is grounds for loss of license.

Actually, the issue IS how [pre-paid legal] gets their hooks into a classroom. That classroom is a captive audience, which is a good environment for sales.
I do care if a referral fee is provided as those fees tend to influence the people to whom the fee is provided. Just like I want to know if my investment adviser is paid for his services via flat fee or by recommending investment vehicles that he'll see a commission on. Basically I want all the information that I can get before making a decision.

I believe the instructors should be paid in a manner that doesn't make [pre-paid legal] (or similar) associations necessary for them to stay in business.

Reading the article, I spot several ways that you're NOT covered by [pre-paid legal] that run contrary to the sales-pitch that I was given in class...

When I took my course my instructor did not keep us captive during the [pre-paid legal] presentation. The assumption is that the instructor is allowing [pre-paid legal] to give their spiel just for the $$$. The instructor though may feel that [pre-paid legal] is a good service to offer. My instructor did not push either way so I don't know. I personally am glad that the service was offered to me and perhaps I am just a gullible nit-wit but I prefer having the availability of legal aid and I am glad it was offered. I actually did research the NRA plan as well and I can't say that I have ever seen anything good about it anywhere. I am sure NRA gets a nice kickback pushing that too, which is how all of these plans work and I don't fault them for doing it either. I realize that most on this board don't feel that way but I am not an attorney and I have been a defendant in court and it's no fun. Actually it is life altering and you never come out feeling the same way until you have been through a lawsuit. I really don't care what everyone else wants to do about [pre-paid legal]. I have yet to see anyone yet show me that [pre-paid legal] does not deliver on what they claim to provide. I just hope to never try to use them. It would seem to me though that if [pre-paid legal] didn't deliver that they would be the ones getting sued for breech of contract or whatever and not for a fee kickback scheme which is standard in the legal world. I sleep better at night though with the policy than without it.

This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread; i.e. the lawsuit for alleged violation of Texas law. Stop the [pre-paid legal] endorsement posts or all of them will be deleted.

Chas.

In Texas, you have to be licensed to sell prepaid legal services. ($20/year.) That could come back to bite some people too...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rotor wrote:The issue of course should be whether [pre-paid legal] does or does not provide a needed service to those that decide to sign up for it's services ( I did) and I don't really care if a referral "fee" was given. This seems to be the standard for attorneys on everything and is considered "ethical" whereas for medical caregivers it is grounds for loss of license.

No, this absolutely is not the standard for attorneys! We cannot give a referral fee to anyone, attorney or non-attorney. We can share fees with a fellow attorney, but under very strict requirements that include, among other things, clear notice to our clients.

Chas.

I am not endorsing [pre-paid legal]. I stated that I use them. Now let's talk about attorney sharing fees. Every TV announcement about "Bad Drug" or "asbestos" exposure that we all see on TV involves attorneys gathering clients with their TV ads and referring them on to another set of attorneys and Charles, if you have read the Wall Street Journal and I know you have, some of the biggest legal (?) kickbacks have been exposed especially with the asbestos fund. We also know how the tobacco settlement in Texas went down with an unbelievable amount going to some attorney firms. Talk about winning the lottery. Every time [pre-paid legal] comes up there is the question about eliminating the posts. Do you know something that you feel you can share with the rest of us that is unspoken up to now? This seems to be a taboo subject on this forum.

rotor wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rotor wrote:The issue of course should be whether [pre-paid legal] does or does not provide a needed service to those that decide to sign up for it's services ( I did) and I don't really care if a referral "fee" was given. This seems to be the standard for attorneys on everything and is considered "ethical" whereas for medical caregivers it is grounds for loss of license.

No, this absolutely is not the standard for attorneys! We cannot give a referral fee to anyone, attorney or non-attorney. We can share fees with a fellow attorney, but under very strict requirements that include, among other things, clear notice to our clients.

Chas.

I am not endorsing [pre-paid legal]. I stated that I use them. Now let's talk about attorney sharing fees. Every TV announcement about "Bad Drug" or "asbestos" exposure that we all see on TV involves attorneys gathering clients with their TV ads and referring them on to another set of attorneys and Charles, if you have read the Wall Street Journal and I know you have, some of the biggest legal (?) kickbacks have been exposed especially with the asbestos fund. We also know how the tobacco settlement in Texas went down with an unbelievable amount going to some attorney firms. Talk about winning the lottery. Every time [pre-paid legal] comes up there is the question about eliminating the posts. Do you know something that you feel you can share with the rest of us that is unspoken up to now? This seems to be a taboo subject on this forum.

Texas attorneys cannot take a referral fee from anyone, period. It is legal to share fees under specific circumstances as I noted before. If you want to know what is required, then go to the Texas Bar web page and read the attorney disciplinary rules. I don't care what you think about the tobacco litigation, the fees paid, or who got the fees. You don't know squat about what went on, other than rumors. That has nothing to do with the class action lawsuit against [pre-paid legal]. If you want to launch a global attack against attorneys, you're going to have to do it somewhere else.

If I wanted to share something with you, I would have done so. Don't pitch [pre-paid legal] or any prepaid legal service again.

Chas.

I took my initial CHL class at Alvin Community College and my renewal from Charles. Obviously neither ever discussed [pre-paid legal]. When I considered signing up with [pre-paid legal], I asked Charles his opinion on the service. I took the reply to be a neutral non committal, neither endorsing or condemning. I chose to sign up because of the perceived piece of mind. I have seen the [pre-paid legal] flyers are some gun ranges but never made any connection to fees paid by the range to [pre-paid legal].

I recently attended one of their Gun Seminars in San Antonio. I believe as a responsible gun owner, periodic refreshers on the law is prudent. (I used to attend Charles' periodic seminars but moved away). The seminar was conducted by Larry Bloomquist, a local attorney. I found it very informative and educational. My only comment related to this post is that I sensed zero pressure for enrollment in the program.

JALLEN wrote:...Liability policies almost always exclude intentional acts....

I find your use of the word "almost" interesting, Jim, given your experience with insurance.

Years ago I challenged readers who think that their home owners' insurance policy covers their potential liability for an intentional act to contact their broker, agent, salesman, or such about this -- someone making a profit on the sale of the policy to them, and to advise me the identity of the insurance company if the reply is in the affirmative, as I might be interested in purchasing that insurance. I also advised that if one of them responded in the affirmative to insist on the answer in writing, and if received to file the written response with their other important papers, as the one who responded affirmatively may well have assumed some liability should the worst happen.

Years later nobody has responded to my challenge.

With the respect you know that I have for you, Jim, can you clarify your interesting use of the word "almost?" I am not challenging your statement, Jim, but I cannot come up with an example to support it. I, for example, like you, are familiar with Lloyds of London, and I suppose that there may be some truth to the ancient myth(?) that it will insure anything, for appropriate premiums.

Thank you,

Jim