Personally, I'd only consider a plan that paid me cash to pay my own attorney of choice. Any program that promises to provide legal services directly creates a conflict of interest -- my interest will be to have the most competent, most thorough legal defense possible whereas their interest will be cost control (i.e. using a minimum amount of labor of the greenest/cheapest attorney possible). Otherwise, I might as well take the assigned public defender.
Of the programs being mentioned, I believe only the Armed Citizen's Network pays out cash to my chosen attorney. However, benefits are capped at $10,000 -- a fraction of what you'll need if your case went to trial but probably enough to carry you through questioning, depositions and a decision whether to proceed by a grand jury. They have a foundation you can apply to get more benefits, but there's no guarantee the foundation will take on your case and no disclosure of the finances of that foundation, so in my opinion that added benefit is too vague to be considered as part of the Armed Citizen's Network's value proposition (there's also a story on their website where the foundation took on a case for a non-member).
Unfortunately, no one gets to know whether they're going to need insurance before they have to decide to buy it. But, you can tease a probability or two out of the numbers to help you make a decision. At $85/year for the membership, and assuming a full $10k payout, mathematically you should buy the policy if you think your probability is greater than 0.85% of getting involved in a "complicated" shooting in the coming year ($85 / $10,000). Personally, I think my odds are way lower than that, especially since I plan to do everything possible to avoid such an unfortunate situation -- I fully expect most people here do. Moreover, you may be involved in an "uncomplicated" shooting -- one which is dismissed fairly quickly, so you don't end up collecting the full $10k benefit. Mathematically, this has the effect of lowering the 0.85% figure -- in other words, statistically you should buy the package if your probability of getting involved in a shooting in the next year is somewhere less than that 0.85%. It's hard to take these particular numbers farther without knowing more about average legal bills for average shooting incidents.
But, there are other ways to look at this. For example, consider that there are approximately 300,000 CHL holders in Texas (round figure guesstimate). Let's stick with the conservative 0.85% number. At that incident rate, CHL holders should be buying the Armed Citizen's insurance if we're seeing 2,550 CHL shootings in Texas each year (300,000 * 0.85%). It's pretty apparent that we're not seeing that level of activity -- Texas has about 122,000 violent crimes per year, and 2,550 would mean that 2% of all (reported) violent crimes ended up in a CHL shooting. Um, don't think so, no. To be fair, though, there may be 300,000 CHL license holders, but many don't carry regularly. I don't know any actual data for carry percentages, but I suspect the actual carry rate is pretty low and that the carry rate for the people on this forum is above average.
Lastly, I'm not trying to tell someone whether they should buy insurance. The math can't tell you that, either, even though we know intuitively that it doesn't make financial sense for the average CHL-holder to buy insurance because if it did, the Armed Citizen's Network would quickly run out of cash and go out of business. What you're really buying is peace of mind, considering a sense of your own individual risk and your personal financial circumstances, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Cheers!