Good carry insurance

[spencer60]

You're paying them a monthly fee but provide you with an attorney and help you sort out the mess after a shooting. I can't see where the conflict of interest would be, anymore than hiring any attorney to represent you.

The potential conflict of interest comes up because the company is obviously going to want to close out this case as cheaply as possible. The could (in theory) press their attorney (who is being paid by them, not you) to settle in a way that may not be 100% in your best interest but is in theirs... like pleading to a lesser charge that still makes you a 'prohibited person'.

Not saying they would, but technically the company is their client, not you.

 

[Robroyb]

The potential conflict of interest comes up because the company is obviously going to want to close out this case as cheaply as possible. The could (in theory) press their attorney (who is being paid by them, not you) to settle in a way that may not be 100% in your best interest but is in theirs... like pleading to a lesser charge that still makes you a 'prohibited person'.

Not saying they would, but technically the company is their client, not you.

Actually, from what I understand, the attorney's are employed by the company. I don't think the company is hiring private attys. If they were, that could be an issue for sure.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[kuduboss]

Before you sign up with them, check out US Law Shield. I compared and found it to be better.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong. USLS is a legal defense fund where a lawyer is provided at no cost to you ... but if a judgement against you is determined in court then it is entirely your responsibility.

 

[Robroyb]

Correct me if I'm wrong. USLS is a legal defense fund where a lawyer is provided at no cost to you ... but if a judgement against you is determined in court then it is entirely your responsibility.

I didn't understand it to be that way. I haven't heard of any reason to believe that either.

 

[gh1950]

[QUOTE="spencer60, post: 7158106, member: 7066"

Not saying they would, but technically the company is their client, not you.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely incorrect.

YOU are their client.

The attorney could NEVER settle a criminal case without the client's consent.

In civil cases the ins. company can settle a case within policy limits w/o the insureds consent, but it has to be a complete settlement that does not expose the insured to liability. Even then some types of cases (medical malpractice) cannot be settled w/o the insured Dr. consent, because of the repercussions on his reputation.

 

[spencer60]

Actually, from what I understand, the attorney's are employed by the company. I don't think the company is hiring private attys. If they were, that could be an issue for sure.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

That's actually my point... as employees of the company they may be expected to keep costs down, while as your attorney, they would be expected to spend whatever it takes to get an acquittal.

The Zimmerman/Martin trial is a great example. Zimmerans' defense cost well over a million dollars from what I understand, with all kinds of costs like forensic reports, expert witnesses, etc.

How happy will one of these companies be to pony up a million bucks for your trial? If 'your' attorney actually works for them, don't you think there would be a temptation to shave a few corners? Reduce a few 'unnecessary' trial expenses?

I'm not saying these companies would do this type of thing, but anytime you aren't hiring your own attorney, you run the risk of a conflict like this.

 

[spencer60]

Absolutely incorrect.

YOU are their client.

The attorney could NEVER settle a criminal case without the client's consent.

In civil cases the ins. company can settle a case within policy limits w/o the insureds consent, but it has to be a complete settlement that does not expose the insured to liability. Even then some types of cases (medical malpractice) cannot be settled w/o the insured Dr. consent, because of the repercussions on his reputation.

True, in a criminal case the attorney representing you has to have your consent. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of what you hear PDs doing all the time, presenting the case to you in a way that makes you agree to 'settle' for a lesser charge or some other plea, just to get the case over and done with ASAP.

You are absolutely right that they can't simply force you to accept a particular plea though.

 

[gh1950]

How happy will one of these companies be to pony up a million bucks for your trial? If 'your' attorney actually works for them, don't you think there would be a temptation to shave a few corners? Reduce a few 'unnecessary' trial expenses?

Not if the attorney wants to keep practicing law. The attorney does not work for the company, the company pays his fees. There's a big difference.

The company is contractually obligated to provide you a "defense." That includes the whole package which is projected through the premiums.

BTW, I come back to medical malpractice. The "defense" of the doctor can easily pass $500,000.00, and the lawyers not even work up a sweat.

 

[Robroyb]

Well, to be honest with you. Having somebody on my side would be better than not. If I had to defend myself, I could never afford the funds to pay for an atty at those cost. I would have to let it fall on the court appointed atty, and I really doubt they would work half as hard as the USLS, or any of the others who want to protect the reputation of the company. I feel better paying $10 a month, knowing I have someone to call who will be on my side.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[spencer60]

Agreed.

That's why I've got both ACLDN and Second Call Defense. I figure between the two of them I should be covered.