|
toplitzin posted:My legal plan through work has been fine for like $7/check. Yeah, both pretty simple matters with not much on the line in terms of unsecured risk, no real time limiters, no litigation? Sure. The problem is that with legal insurance, the legal assistance is basically pre-paid, and the insurance company has all the incentive in the world (just like in health care, automotive insurance etc.) to pay as little of the bill as possible. If the attorney is employed by the insurance company, they really have a massive conflict of interest usually leading to at best sub-par assistance and bare minimum work, and even if they aren't the one paying the bills is still the insurance company which will actively pressure that attorney to do as little as possible by denying coverage, slow-mo fee processing, etc. which really leads to the same result. Even worse, if it's a litigation case and OC fees are on the line (if the company even covers that), and the case is kinda weak (but hardly unwinnable or unsettle-able) the company will fight to have your attorney tell you your case is a no-go, no chance, give up now etc. just to avoid risk. That attorney is incentivised to not fight for you if it's anything but a slam dunk. Even then, if the company disagrees that it's a good case, they'll do the same and you may be forced to drop a great case. All the while, you're supposed to intimately trust this attorney that is serving multiple masters. The reason you don't see this problem often is that people don't go to lawyers for help all that often throughout their lives and when they do, it's rarely legal insured aid. If you pay the bills, you make the call yourself and a good attorney can fight even a bad case to an okay settlement a lot of the time. That's one of the things that you for sure are giving up with legal insurance. Caveat: This is how I've experienced this with legal insurance OC, these are pretty easy cases for me because there's usually no will to really fight there. YMMV in the US system which might be different/better with this, or maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree or barely scratching the surface. All things considered, I think it's a scam and some other folks agree with me but hey everyone takes their own risks.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
It’s a scam. Real legal insurance is called liability insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 12:15
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:I called HR and spoke with somebody there and at ARAG to go over what it covers. Does your hypotheical person have the ability to do that too? When I allegedly asked about it, HR hypothetically gave me a phone number and said "only like 3 people in the company are signed up for it so good luck let me know what you find out because I don't know poo poo about it lol." Hypothetically. Nice piece of fish posted:and the insurance company has all the incentive in the world (just like in health care, automotive insurance etc.) to pay as little of the bill as possible. Yeah that occurred to me, and for the price it seems pretty dirt cheap compared to what they would actually cost. "Too good to be true" is the best red flag... can see that one from space. I was finally able to get an access code for the website from HR, and most anything that is complicated only covers "phone/office advice." Color me surprised. So simple real estate, wills, demand letters, etc. are all "covered." The paperwork says, "Trials for covered matters are covered from beginning to end..." but nothing that's covered would ever go to trial except for maybe a speeding ticket. Hypothetically. euphronius posted:It's a scam. I'm starting to come to that conclusion. I mean, even knowing I was going to do a will this year I still declined signing up because this is insurance and the house always wins, but now I'm more convinced. DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
Just adding “hypothetically” doesn’t make your situation hypothetical. We actually have real ethical concerns wrt legal advice and it’s not a meme or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
And by ethical, he's not meaning some hypothetical moral. A state's bar can and will punish lawyers for ethical violations up to stripping them of their license to practice. Asking a question like "Is my work's legal insurance option worthwhile?" is a fine question because it's not asking for legal advice. People, as a result, have been discussing the various experiences with legal insurance setups similar to yours. Any question like this: "I need a will that says this, this, and this - how do I do that in state X" or "I got caught with two ounces of weed in montana what do I need to do?" is a situation where a specific answer could bring actual legal/ethical responsibility on our heads. Instead you should ask "What are the pot possession laws like in Montana?" or "where can I find a probate attorney in my area?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Just adding “hypothetically” doesn’t make your situation hypothetical. I get that for actual legal advice, but I figured asking about the usefulness of legal insurance benefits from work isn't remotely close to actual legal advice. Casually observing the thread makes the whole 'hypothetical' thing look like a frequent in-joke so I think I was just trying to be funny (though successfully it seems).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
Eh, you're fine. I think he's mostly saying so other people don't come in and start dropping the old "SWIM was caught with meth - help!" type things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Re: prepaid legal services. It seems like if you're paying $100-300 a year for it, and you can use it to to get at least more than that in "simple" legal services like wills, letters to your landlord or whatever, then it makes sense. Realistically, I can't imagine most people would break even in the long run and you're probably better off having money budgeted in a savings account for that same purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
Prepaid legal seems like a great racket if you want to make a bunch of money without doing any significant amount of work. A great racket for the attorney that is. I assume there's some sort of maximum cap right around the "would have to do real work" level. edit: in the same sense that private insurance generally is a "racket" Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
It’s not a racket because you just can’t “stop working” if the amount of work involved extends beyond what the “insurance” company will pay you. Also they won’t pay you up front which is a huge turn off. $75 to write a letter is insulting. It costs way more than that. euphronius fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It’s not a racket because you just can’t “stop working” if the amount of work involved extends beyond what the “insurance” company will pay you. Sure you can, if you're engaged by the insurance company and the insurance company says "stop" and the client is actually not a client but is a customer of the insurance company and their coverage and their agreement with the company is the representation agreement, which it always will be in these scams. You say "nah", insurance company says "great that saves us money and the insurance agreement gives us power to do whatever" and the customer goes "waah".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
That’s not what ARAG et al are doing You are correct in a normal case with subrogation with like Liberty Mutual or Swiss Re then yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Arag isn’t subrogating claims. That’s why I said above it isn’t even really legal insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That’s not what ARAG et al are doing Yup and that's been a huge issue with us for a while because naturally, the bar association thinks that kind of arrangement is hella unethical. We actually do have a functioning legal insurance though, which is great and I use it all the time. It's not something you take out per se, it's just tacked on to (as a legally mandated part of) homeowner and car insurance. Which is to say you pay nothing extra, but if you own or rent or own a car the company is on the hook for general legal expenses regarding any private property or rights up to about 12-13 000 USD minus a co-pay and realistically can't say no because the claim comes directly from the attorney and if they say no we just send a complaint to a special tribunal and almost always win and they have to pay twice as much. Pretty much we get paid regardless and most of it is covered by the company and the company gets no real say in it unless it's pretty obviously not covered (family court, municipal complaints, criminal cases and such).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Just for comparison, ours is through Hyatt, and here's what they cover: Office Consultation and Telephone Advice This service provides the opportunity to discuss with an attorney any personal legal problems that are not specifically excluded. CONSUMER PROTECTION Consumer Protection Matter Personal Property Protection Small Claims Assistance DEBT MATTERS Debt Collection Defense Identity Theft Defense Personal Bankruptcy or Wage Earner Plan Tax Audits DEFENSE OF CIVIL LAWSUITS Administrative Hearing Representation Civil Litigation Defense Incompetency Defense Docs: Affidavits, Deeds, Demand Letters, Doc review, Elder Law, MOrtgages, Promissory Notes Family Law: Adoption/Legitimization (contested and un) Guardian/Conservatorships (con and un) Name Changes Prenups Domestic Violence protection Immigration assistance Personal Injury for 25% of the award. Real Estate: Boundary/Title disputes (primary) Eviction (tennant only) Home equity loans (review or prep) Tax Assesment Refi (pri or second home) Sale (primary, second/vacation) Zoning applications Traffic/Criminal ANY juvie offense Driving priv restoration Tickets Except DUI and/or vehic homicide. Will Estate: Living Will PoA Probate @ 10% off normal fee. Trusts Will/Codicil Excluded: - Employment-related matters, including company or statutory benefits - Matters involving the company, MetLife and affiliates, and Plan Attorneys - Matters in which there is a conflict of interest between the employee and spouse or dependents in which case services are excluded for the spouse and dependents - Appeals and class actions - Farm matters, business or investment matters, matters involving property held for investment or rental, or issues when the Participant is the landlord - Patent, trademark and copyright matters - Costs or fines - Frivolous or unethical matters - Matters for which an attorney-client relationship exists prior to the Participant becoming eligible for plan benefits
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
You left out the important parts ie the coverage limits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
This PDF is garbage, image post incoming:     
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
Well I guess you would not have the important part which is how much they pay the attorney You would be lucky to find an attorney to do maybe 5% of what is listed on that page. Imho Maybe Hyatt pays attorneys a lot ? I doubt it
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
Don't post your own legal docs here you doofus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Hyatt legal is fine, but not sure how they make a profit. I opted into it for a year where I needed to do estate planning with quit claims, wills, trusts, and healthcare POA. It saved me a good $800 over the raw quotes I was getting, and as a bonus I got to outsource my yearly property tax appeal. I don't do it if I'm not expecting legal expenses though I guess enough people do to make it profitable.Hieronymous Alloy posted:Don't post your own legal docs here you doofus. He posted what is pretty much a public document on what his plan covers, no biggie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
baquerd posted:
Fair enough I guess -- on phone, so images didn't load -- but still, once you're posting individual information, well, see thread title.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
That’s as much of a personal legal document as posting a placemat menu from Red Lobster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
I mean for ~$200/year I feel I got my monies worth for the couple of "it'd be nice to have a lawyer review/sign off on this" things that crop up. I'll probably use them again this year for a will after getting married/now i have a job with transferable assets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
I had ARAG through my work. It was not a good experience I needed some simple questions answered about a financial issue I was having and after calling about 2-3 places on their approved list, I never got a call back. Luckily I was able to cancel the stupid plan since they lock you in for a year. Is there actually a decent legal subscription service that works?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
ragedx posted:Is there actually a decent legal subscription service that works?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:I believe it's called "a retainer." Ah, I see you're a local Lord from Sengoku era Japan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
I'm sure this has been asked before, but what is the admissibility of dash cams for basic things like traffic tickets? I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction, but I've been considering getting one and am wondering if they're worth it. Well, the main reason I want one is because people around here drive like idiots and think red lights are suggestions, so I know it's a matter of time until I get nailed and have to prove that my light was green. But outside of accidents, let's take a hypothetical of getting pulled over for something where the officer mistakenly thought I did something... like let's say they claim I ran a red light when I didn't. So normally this would be a he-said-she-said thing where I'd lose, or at best I'd spend a lot of time/money to get a ticket plead down to something less serious. But let's say I have a dash cam video that clearly shows the light was green when I entered the intersection. How would this become evidence that I didn't run a red light? I've read that for accidents you're supposed to immediately hand over the memory card to an officer at the scene so that the authorities have custody of it (the theory being it can be tampered with later). Will an officer handing out a red light ticket take a dash cam memory card then and there, or would I get laughed at? And I guess in a more general sense, if dash cam footage isn't handed over to an officer at the scene, is it even admissible anymore? Or...the other thing I just considered: does dash cam footage fall under the "don't say/provide poo poo until you talk to a lawyer" directive? Because the other concern in my mind is giving them the memory card allows them to trawl through all the past X hours of your driving that's stored on the memory card and write you up for every time you rolled a stop sign at an empty intersection. Stupid follow-up: For basic traffic tickets, is there any recourse to get legal fees back for obvious errors like the above hypothetical? I mean, I know it's usually more cost effective to fight a bad ticket instead of taking the fines + insurance hit, but is all that money sunk if you're clearly not guilty?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
do not hand the only copy of the evidence you have to a cop who will lose it because it’s a minor ticket not a murder if you are contesting a traffic ticket the rules of evidence are going to be pretty loose in the first place but of course you don’t have to hand over the memory card; all evidence can be tampered with but you’d authenticate it by testifying it was video of the incident and it hasn’t been tampered with and if some incredibly bored prosecutor wants to try to claim its been faked either it’s gotta look really loving fake or he’s gonna look like an idiot
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
One would probably also lose if the camera showed the light was green. Traffic tickets aren’t about justice. One could maybe appeal a loss to a trial court but why bother (for minor traffic tickets). There is no general mechanism to get attorneys fees and costs of you prevail in disputing a ticket. Maybe in some states. euphronius fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:One would probably also lose if the camera showed the light was green. Traffic tickets aren’t about justice. What are you talking about? If you show a DA independent proof that you are innocent he’ll almost certainly dismiss it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
Maybe in Texas. DAs don’t prosecute tickets in PA. The cop does with help from the magistrate judge. As I said you could appeal that loss to a trial court where you would meet an (assistant) DA but now you have spent 150$ Plus and hours of court time for a ticket that probably cost 180$. This doesn’t apply to Philadelphia which has a proper traffic court. euphronius fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:59
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Any question like this: "I need a will that says this, this, and this - how do I do that in state X" or "I got caught with two ounces of weed in montana what do I need to do?" is a situation where a specific answer could bring actual legal/ethical responsibility on our heads. What if somebody asked for a recommendation of what kind of lawyer to consult for their situation? If you told them they should talk to a lawyer that practices X law, would that be considered legal advice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
But this does and you just created joinder, congrats on your new ~*~FREE.client _on-the-land_~*~
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:But this does and you just created joinder, congrats on your new ~*~FREE.client _on-the-land_~*~ He didn't use gold fringe. He's fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:do not hand the only copy of the evidence you have to a cop who will lose it because it’s a minor ticket not a murder Yup that's fair. And I understand it's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would contend dash cam footage in 2019 for a simple ticket, but I didn't know if there's a common technicality that makes video evidence easily dismissible. In my head video evidence is pretty solid unless someone can positively prove that it's been falsified, but I can also see paranoid jurisdictions that reject anything that doesn't have a clear chain of custody. euphronius posted:One would probably also lose if the camera showed the light was green. Traffic tickets aren’t about justice. So is this hyperbole, or are there actually magistrates in your area that willingly ignore obvious evidence in the hopes that a ticket will stick and won't be appealed? I mean I know revenue generation is a real thing, but this seems blatant and would only take a handful of appeals for someone to catch on. I guess a lot stuff can be fudged, but "Yeah the video shows that your light was green but gently caress you anyway" seems like a good way to throw away your career and possibly end up in prison for a while... maybe I'm just not cynical enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:He didn't use gold fringe. He's fine. Foiled again! And my plan would have worked if it wasn't for you meddling kids! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:What are you talking about? If you show a DA independent proof that you are innocent he’ll almost certainly dismiss it. I would 100%, yeah. DaveSauce posted:In my head video evidence is pretty solid unless someone can positively prove that it's been falsified, but I can also see paranoid jurisdictions that reject anything that doesn't have a clear chain of custody. I guess, just as a matter of statistics, that out of the thousands of prosecutors/magistrates out there there has to be one that would out-and-out ignore exculpatory evidence just to get your $60 after court fees for the fine, but realistically, any prosecutor/judge/whatever would dismiss your case if you showed clear and convincing evidence of innocence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Yup that's fair. And I understand it's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone would contend dash cam footage in 2019 for a simple ticket, but I didn't know if there's a common technicality that makes video evidence easily dismissible. so again, you're way, way, way overthinking things for a traffic ticket, but let's say it was like a murder or something where people are going to be sticklers for evidence and someone might go to the effort of faking it. how you would get the video into evidence is that you'd turn over a copy to the other side, then (assuming it was your dash cam) you'd be put on the stand. you'd testify that you recorded the video with your dash cam, you'd removed the memory stick and turned it over intact to your lawyer or whoever, and that the video you're going to be showing is true and accurate. your lawyer would move to put it into evidence. you've authenticated it, it's now in evidence. now, if the other side wants to argue it's not valid, they can. but obviously it would be preposterous for any evidence a defendant wants to put into evidence to have gone through a police chain of custody. you've got a right to try to find evidence of your own and put that on. you have to turn over a copy to the other side before trial, so they can review it and figure out if they think you tampered with it so if they want to argue that, they can. you might argue it's slightly more credible evidence if it's been in police custody so you never had a chance to tamper with it, but there's not a presumption that all evidence outside a police chain of custody has been tampered with. if the prosecutor wanted to say "this video is faked" they'll have to say why, and put on evidence for it. they can get a computer guy to say that the video shows signs of editing; that there are no timestamps so that could have been from some other time; that it was completely fake and here's why; but all of that is them putting on their own testimony and evidence, and trying to persuade the jury/judge not to rely on the evidence you put in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Example: Some time last year, a dude came in on a speeding ticket (doing 45 in a 35) and claimed there was no posted speed limit, and thus because of the default rule for the size of road, the speed limit was 45 (true, if there is no sign posted). He showed us a cell-phone video he took of the stretch of road right after he got his ticket that showed the signs had been taken down. Confused, we called the chief right there in the Court room, and he went back and looked through his email and found a notice from the Department of Transportation that they were taking down the signs that day to replace them in a week with new signs - its just that they didn't send the email until the day after they took the signs down so there was about a 12 hour span with no signs, but no email alerting the police, in which the dude got his ticket. We dismissed it right there and our cop apologized for the inconvenience to the dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:20
|
|