[Pre-paid legal service] and Pre-Paid Legal

[G26ster]

Obviously, IANAL and may be missing something in the contract, but it really doesn't look THAT bad to me. I am most troubled by the lack of a price specified in the contract, even by reference to an appendix or advertising price. The conflict of interest termination could be better explained (like how they decide which side of the conflict to terminate, or do they drop both sides), but by law they have to terminate if there is a conflict anyway, so I am surprised it is in there at all. I did take the crime clause to be referring to a crime other than the use of the firearm, such as a robbery or something. I was not even surprised by the fact that it covers the lawyer only, and not the expert witnesses or investigators.

If you want a bigger problem with the CHL contract, it clearly only covers your CONCEALED HANDGUN. If you are at home, or out hunting, and use a rifle or shotgun, it doesn't cover you at all. You might need both contracts they offer to get the proper coverage you think you have.

As a marketing tip, they might want to expand their coverage a little bit. It is currently restricted to only Texas CHL holders, and would not cover a person in Texas with an out of state CHL, say a tourist, a military person, or even a Texas resident who decided to get Utah's license instead. And I would also look at covering the investigator's time and some of the support stuff. It would require a raise in rates, but even double the fee, if that was added, would make me look more into it.

Since the terms of the contract are posted, I would strongly recommend anyone considering it to take the contract to their own lawyer and see what they have to say about it. Most of what we are objecting to might be straight contractual boilerplate in lawyer contracts. A good lawyer could tell you whether or not it is worth the money.

Good points srothstein. You are correct about the contract, but their advertising says,"...if you ever use your gun anywhere in the State of Texas, we will defend your freedom for no additional attorneys' fees." So, I would not sign that contract unless it was clarified.

I attended a gun show here today in Ft. Worth. [Pre-paid legal service] had a booth, and one of the firm's 3 partner's (attorneys) was there. I had an extensive conversation with him, and found out that all the partners in the firm are CHLs. At least this makes me believe that they are very understanding of the Texas gun and associated laws. Their contract covers the "use" of a handgun in any way, both for criminal and civil trials. The CHL contract does not cover infractions of the law other than "use." I believe he also said, if the infraction does not involve "use" they would refer you to a lawyer in your area. Don't hold me to this, as my main objective at the show was guns, not lawyers. That said, I have read here, many times, CHLs wanting to know the name of a good local lawyer to call "in case." Personally, I have no one right now to call. He was emphatic that you should NEVER say anything to the police without a lawyer present! Well that goes without saying.

So I guess it boils down to a gamble if you want to take their service seriously and sign up, or look for reasons that it's a scam. If, in the event, you use your firearm you are going to need a lawyer. Just depends if you want to wait until then to find one. If this service is legit, and I certainly want to ask more questions, then I may sign up. Worst case is I'm out the price a of a few Starbucks every month. But, as you said, I would want to ensure that the service covered me in my home or car as well. I am in no way affiliated with this firm and IANAL. Just relating what I learned today at their booth.

[drjoker]

I have prepaid legal. I have never used them to fight a self-defense shooting case (Thank God), but they've made traffic tickets disappear and they're very good at altering unfair contracts before I sign them. This has saved me much grief and money. For example, you know those jokers who will require you to sign an unfair contract that says, "we are NOT responsible if we destroy your car/appliance/motorbike,etc," before you get work done? Prepaid legal will fix these contracts for you before you sign them so that they read, "we ARE responsible for any damages arising from our negligence," They are great for reading and altering contracts for you. They are also great for answering stupid legal questions like, "Hey, I'm a CHL, is it legal for me to...?" Beats asking a bunch of NON-LAWYERS on this forum. I have also used them to write letters threatening to sue unscrupulous online vendors who have sat on my money for 3 months with zero goods delivered to me. One letter and they instantly either ship my items out or cut me a refund check. So, I can attest that prepaid legal is definitely legit, BUT I have no idea if they are any good as criminal trial lawyers and quite frankly, I don't wanna find out!

Hope this helps,

[davidd]

I will try to answer a number of questions raised in this discusion as best i can in more depth.

The [Pre-paid legal service] program was created by lawyers at Walker, Rice & Wisdom, P.C. from the ground up and is designed for one singular purpose - to preserve the freedom of our clients in the program if they ever use their gun.

Our firm’s philosophy is to assist our firearms clients and if they have to use their gun, we want to help. We are not looking for ways to exclude representing our clients. That would defeat the purpose of the program - i.e. encourage gun owners to exercise and preserve mine and your 2nd Amendment rights.

In a previous post, someone expressed a concern about the “conflicts” provision of the contract. The conflict of interest clause is necessary because the law firm cannot represent a party in a situation which would pit the law firm against itself, such as if a client shoots a member of the firm, their family, or another client. If that happens, the law firm cannot represent either party. This is a standard practice which is also mandated by the rules of professional ethics governing attorneys. Lawyers must adhere to rules set out by the State Bar of Texas. Our conflict exclusions are if you shoot: 1) an employee of the firm; 2) a family member of a firm employee; and 3) another client of the firm. Obviously if you shoot Mr. Wisdom’s son he is not going to represent you.

Also, that blogger questioned the exclusion for crimes by the client. The “crime” exclusion in the [Pre-paid legal service] contract applies to those situations where a CHL holder uses his handgun in the commission of an act where he has no claim that it was a justified use of deadly force. For example, if a CHL holder walks into a convenience store and robs it, clearly he has no justification in the use of deadly force. On the other hand, if we walks into the convenience store and stumbles upon a robbery in progress, his use of his gun would be justified and we would represent him in the police investigation, grand jury, and through trial if the DA thinks otherwise. If there is any legal justification for the use of the gun, we are there to help. These are just common sense provisions.

Also, in another post, a blogger suggested we offer our services to those who hold a CHL from other states with reciprocity with Texas. Our law firm is happy to cover a Texas resident who possesses any CHL recognized by the State of Texas, for any defensive use of any firearm within the State of Texas. In fact, we do have clients with CHLs issued by other states. We want to help legal gun owners.

The comments and suggestions in this forum have been very helpful. We also took a look at the comment about having to use your handgun in order to be covered by the CHL program. We think this is a good point. The contract will be changed to reflect that if you use a gun (not just your handgun) to defend yourself that you are covered. Those changes should be made and posted shortly. We appreciate the feedback from everyone out there. We strive to make our services better and with the suggestions from other gun owners, we hope to accomplish just that.

If you have any questions, please contact me. My personal email is ddonchecz@yahoo.com or at the office at davidd@[Pre-paid legal service].com

[DoubleActionCHL]

CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995."
Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007."

The complete statute is as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

[srothstein]

DoubleactionCHL,

I believe you may have an old copy of the code, as the one posted by Joe817 is an exact quote from the state's legislative web site for the official statutes. It was revised in 2007 and your version may not include that revision.

here is a link to the code:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... htm#83.001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DoubleActionCHL]

DoubleactionCHL,

I believe you may have an old copy of the code, as the one posted by Joe817 is an exact quote from the state's legislative web site for the official statutes. It was revised in 2007 and your version may not include that revision.

here is a link to the code:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... htm#83.001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I stand corrected. However, as written, the actor must use force for the immunity to apply. A threat of force or deadly force that justifies a response of deadly force may not qualify for civil immunity under this statute, although IANAL.

[Osvaldo]

Prepaid Legal can help you in many of the legal issues that you don't understand. They can be very useful when you are signing contracts with others companies. Prepaid Legal will help you to remove those unfair clauses in the contract that you don't need.

[ELB]

Graybeard, the suit has been filed, slated for trial later this year. They have been through all the depositions, tried to get it thrown out, Texas Supreme Court would not allow that. So barring any more delays should be going to trial.

Any update on this?

[dac1842]

AEA, with all due respect sir, you are mistaken. You can be sued. I am friends with a man who is one of the first to shoot an intruder in his home following the passage of the Castle Doctrine. He was no billed by the Grand Jury. He is being sued for wrongful death anyway. The Texas Supreme Court refused to dismiss the case stating that a person cannot be denied their constitutional right to a trial. Now the law says there is no liability, it does not and cannot prevent a suit from being filed. The case goes to trial in November.

[baldeagle]

Although I doubt they cover what you say, the likelihood of a civil trial is almost nill on a good shot.

Maybe I've not followed all the laws recently, but my understanding is that a civil suit can still be filed (heck, anyone can file a civil suit for almost any reason) and the costs associated with highering an attorney to get the the case thrown out (because of the current laws) still exist. The laws really only protect you from a trial if you have an attorney who can argue to get the process stopped early on.

You are completely wrong on your assessment. No sensible attorney will even attempt a civil suit in Texas with regard to a good shot by a CHL after a Grand Jury dismisses all charges.

I'll state my opinion that you are both correct. You can not be denied the right to file a civil suit and no sensible attorney would file a civil suit.

Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

We just went through this in another thread. "any remedy", in the instance of a legal use of deadly force is no remedy. Civil immunity means just that. Civil immunity. As in you cannot be sued. Any lawyer that files a civil suit in an instance where deadly force was legally used would have his case thrown out immediately. You wouldn't need to hire an attorney to do that. You simply petition the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, citing 83.001. I wouldn't even bother petitioning the court. I would call the plaintiff's attorney directly and suggest to him that he has two options. He can withdraw the suit and promise, in writing, not to file again, or I will not only petition the court to dismiss with prejudice but I will ask that the attorney be sanctioned and the plaintiff be ordered to pay any court or filing fees that I incurred in the process.

[srothstein]

We just went through this in another thread. "any remedy", in the instance of a legal use of deadly force is no remedy. Civil immunity means just that. Civil immunity. As in you cannot be sued. Any lawyer that files a civil suit in an instance where deadly force was legally used would have his case thrown out immediately. You wouldn't need to hire an attorney to do that. You simply petition the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, citing 83.001. I wouldn't even bother petitioning the court. I would call the plaintiff's attorney directly and suggest to him that he has two options. He can withdraw the suit and promise, in writing, not to file again, or I will not only petition the court to dismiss with prejudice but I will ask that the attorney be sanctioned and the plaintiff be ordered to pay any court or filing fees that I incurred in the process.

While this has been gone through several times, we still seem to have a disagreement on a basic concept. You can be legally sued. Civil immunity does not mean you cannot be sued. It simply means you cannot be held liable. Being held liable is, by definition, the results of a trial.

And there is a reason your concept of sanctions will not work. A motion to dismiss will only work if there is NO question of the facts of the case. One of the facts to be determined is if you were legally justified in shooting. There is no way for the civil court to make this determination (if the plaintiff does not agree with your defense) other than by having a trial. A police officer cannot make a legally binding decision on this, even if they currently decide not to charge you. A prosecuting attorney cannot make this as a legally binding decision, even if he decides not to prosecute you.

And the big misconception is that a grand jury cannot make this as a legally binding decision either. They only decide to file a true bill of indictment or no true bill. They may even explain their logic that the case was justified but it is not legally binding on any other court (or even later grand juries, as Ronnie Earle has proven several times).

Even winning a criminal trial does not establish that your case was justified. All that is recorded is a finding of guilty or not guilty. This could mean you were justified, could mean the prosecution messed up its case, and could mean the jury felt sympathetic to you and voted in complete disregard for the law.


As an aside on the pro se representation, SCOTUS Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the attorney who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. I always recommend getting the best lawyer you can afford ANYTIME you are going to court. The other side has the best they can afford, so it is only fair for you to do so also.

[gemini]

I will try to answer a number of questions raised in this discusion as best i can in more depth.

The [Pre-paid legal service] program was created by lawyers at Walker, Rice & Wisdom, P.C. from the ground up and is designed for one singular purpose - to preserve the freedom of our clients in the program if they ever use their gun.

Our firm’s philosophy is to assist our firearms clients and if they have to use their gun, we want to help. We are not looking for ways to exclude representing our clients. That would defeat the purpose of the program - i.e. encourage gun owners to exercise and preserve mine and your 2nd Amendment rights.

In a previous post, someone expressed a concern about the “conflicts” provision of the contract. The conflict of interest clause is necessary because the law firm cannot represent a party in a situation which would pit the law firm against itself, such as if a client shoots a member of the firm, their family, or another client. If that happens, the law firm cannot represent either party. This is a standard practice which is also mandated by the rules of professional ethics governing attorneys. Lawyers must adhere to rules set out by the State Bar of Texas. Our conflict exclusions are if you shoot: 1) an employee of the firm; 2) a family member of a firm employee; and 3) another client of the firm. Obviously if you shoot Mr. Wisdom’s son he is not going to represent you.

Also, that blogger questioned the exclusion for crimes by the client. The “crime” exclusion in the [Pre-paid legal service] contract applies to those situations where a CHL holder uses his handgun in the commission of an act where he has no claim that it was a justified use of deadly force. For example, if a CHL holder walks into a convenience store and robs it, clearly he has no justification in the use of deadly force. On the other hand, if we walks into the convenience store and stumbles upon a robbery in progress, his use of his gun would be justified and we would represent him in the police investigation, grand jury, and through trial if the DA thinks otherwise. If there is any legal justification for the use of the gun, we are there to help. These are just common sense provisions.

Also, in another post, a blogger suggested we offer our services to those who hold a CHL from other states with reciprocity with Texas. Our law firm is happy to cover a Texas resident who possesses any CHL recognized by the State of Texas, for any defensive use of any firearm within the State of Texas. In fact, we do have clients with CHLs issued by other states. We want to help legal gun owners.

The comments and suggestions in this forum have been very helpful. We also took a look at the comment about having to use your handgun in order to be covered by the CHL program. We think this is a good point. The contract will be changed to reflect that if you use a gun (not just your handgun) to defend yourself that you are covered. Those changes should be made and posted shortly. We appreciate the feedback from everyone out there. We strive to make our services better and with the suggestions from other gun owners, we hope to accomplish just that.

If you have any questions, please contact me. My personal email is ddonchecz@yahoo.com or at the office at davidd@[Pre-paid legal service].com

Are any of the lawyers in [Pre-paid legal service], Board Certified by the State of Texas as Criminal Defense Lawyers (specialty/trial)?
Can't seem to find that specific info on their web site. http://www.[Pre-paid legal service].com/chl_who.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Sorry if I overlooked it.

[KFP]

We just went through this in another thread. "any remedy", in the instance of a legal use of deadly force is no remedy. Civil immunity means just that. Civil immunity. As in you cannot be sued. Any lawyer that files a civil suit in an instance where deadly force was legally used would have his case thrown out immediately. You wouldn't need to hire an attorney to do that. You simply petition the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, citing 83.001. I wouldn't even bother petitioning the court. I would call the plaintiff's attorney directly and suggest to him that he has two options. He can withdraw the suit and promise, in writing, not to file again, or I will not only petition the court to dismiss with prejudice but I will ask that the attorney be sanctioned and the plaintiff be ordered to pay any court or filing fees that I incurred in the process.

While this has been gone through several times, we still seem to have a disagreement on a basic concept. You can be legally sued. Civil immunity does not mean you cannot be sued. It simply means you cannot be held liable. Being held liable is, by definition, the results of a trial.

And there is a reason your concept of sanctions will not work.....

As an aside on the pro se representation, SCOTUS Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the attorney who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. I always recommend getting the best lawyer you can afford ANYTIME you are going to court. The other side has the best they can afford, so it is only fair for you to do so also.

[baldeagle]

We just went through this in another thread. "any remedy", in the instance of a legal use of deadly force is no remedy. Civil immunity means just that. Civil immunity. As in you cannot be sued. Any lawyer that files a civil suit in an instance where deadly force was legally used would have his case thrown out immediately. You wouldn't need to hire an attorney to do that. You simply petition the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, citing 83.001. I wouldn't even bother petitioning the court. I would call the plaintiff's attorney directly and suggest to him that he has two options. He can withdraw the suit and promise, in writing, not to file again, or I will not only petition the court to dismiss with prejudice but I will ask that the attorney be sanctioned and the plaintiff be ordered to pay any court or filing fees that I incurred in the process.

While this has been gone through several times, we still seem to have a disagreement on a basic concept. You can be legally sued. Civil immunity does not mean you cannot be sued. It simply means you cannot be held liable. Being held liable is, by definition, the results of a trial.

Then civil immunity is meaningless, because it is whatever the civil trial jury says it is.

You're right we have a disagreement. To me, if civil immunity is to have any meaning at all, it means you cannot be sued for an act that qualifies under the immunity clause. Diplomats have immunity. It means they cannot be sued. Not that they cannot be found liable. You cannot even file a suit against them. Your contention is that, in the case of the use of deadly force, immunity merely means you cannot be found liable after you have been sued if the jury finds you not liable.

The legal definition of immunity is "exemption from a duty or liability that is granted by law to a person or class of persons " cite. Your contention is that you still have a duty to defend yourself in a civil suit and that you must prove your innocence before the immunity applies. IANAL, but I doubt seriously that is what civil immunity means.

My question to you would be, if immunity means what you think it means, then why was the wording of the law changed from "It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages" to "is immune from civil liability" for the legal use of deadly force? I believe the wording was changed precisely because, in the former case, a citizen who used deadly force lawfully still had to go through the process of a civil suit. Otherwise, the change in wording is meaningless.

[KFP]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30408" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;