Are you thinking about joining the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network?
You want to know more about their program and how it stacks up with the other programs. What are the pros and cons? Here comes my review of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Hi everybody. My name is Mark Victor. I'm the owner and founder of the Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm and today I'm going to review the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Now, let me say right off the bat, the owner of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is Marty Hayes. Marty's a good guy. I like Marty. I've had some conversations with Marty. I think Marty cares about these issues. I think he's pro Second Amendment. I think he's probably pro-Freedom, although we haven't discussed that in detail and I'm pretty tough on those issues, but he's certainly pro Second Amendment and Pro Rights of Responsible Gun owners. You might be surprised to know that it was Marty who asked me to do the review on the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. So here it is. Let me start by saying the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network has no formal contract.
I usually hold up the contract and say, here it is. I'm going to read the contract for you, but there's no formal written contract for you to sign, right? This is really problem number one. What exactly do you get when you sign up as a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network? Well, I have some answers for you and the answers come from three different sources. First, what I have here is some documents that I printed out from the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network website because I think Marty would say, yeah, you don't have a written formalized contract, but everything's on the website, so check it out on the website. That's our contract. So I got that information right here. I've gone through it. I'm going to share my thoughts with you about that. Okay, so the second piece of information that I have is a case.
Let's talk about this. This is entitled The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network versus the Washington State Insurance Commissioner. For those of you who like to do legal research, you can find this at 5 34 P third. That's Pacific third 4 39. Now, it's no secret to anybody that the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network has been embroiled in a lawsuit in Washington. They talk about it right there on their website, but there are some important things in this case that I'm going to go through to give you some information, at least my take about the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. And the third piece of information is actually an email conversation I had with Marty, and so I'm going to use some of Marty's own words to describe the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. The reason I did that, by the way, is because I want to make sure I'm being accurate with what it is that I'm critiquing, and it's not just going to be the negative side of things, but also the positive side of things because there are some good things about the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.
Marty's email
So I'll be quoting some things that Marty himself says. Okay, so the first point about the contract, I want to let you know part of the email conversation I had with Marty on this. I specifically asked him, do you have any type of formal written contract? Marty's answer back, no. As you know, contract formation doesn't require a written contract. We offer what we have on our website if a member signs up, they have accepted that offer and a contract is formed. Alright, at first blush seems like a pretty reasonable answer. Also, have another thing in front of me here. This is Title 19, chapter 19.36, section 19.3 6.010 of the Washington Code. This is Washington Law and of course the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is based in Washington, and I want to read it to you. Here's what it says. It's entitled, contracts, et cetera, void unless in writing, and I'm going to read it verbatim, here's what it says in the following cases specified in this section, any agreement, contract and promise shall be void unless such agreement contract or promise or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some person thereon to by him or her lawfully authorized.
That is to say one, every agreement that by its terms is not to be performed in one year from the making thereof. Two, every special promise to appear for the debt default or misdoings of another person, there's three and four and five that probably don't apply here, but the reason I raise this is because it's not so clear to me that I agree with Marty that just because there's information on a website that you actually have a contract if you sign up with the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. So if you do have a contract here, what are the terms of the contract? It's not so clear to me that even if there is a contract, you are entitled to any financial assistance at all. That's the question. Do you have a right under the contract if one exists to any financial assistance at all as a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network?
So I'm going to read from Marty's email, but that's specifically the point of the email. I asked him questions to get his response in preparation for this video. So Marty's fully aware that this is not a private email conversation between he and I, but instead this is an email that he and I had for the purpose of this video, and again, I'm going to go to my email with Marty because here's what Marty says in his own words. We simply reserve the right not to assist in any situation, and if a prospective member cannot accept that, then we recommend they look elsewhere. Well, I think that's pretty clear. Let me read it again. We simply reserve the right not to assist in any situation, and if a prospective member cannot accept that, then we recommend they look elsewhere. That seems pretty clear to me that whatever the contract is, if there's a contract, the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network can simply refuse to assist in any situation, and if you don't like that, go somewhere else.
It's sort of how I read those comments and I think it's probably the only way you can read those comments. Again, that's from Marty himself in an email he sent to me. Okay, there's another section I think that's important here, quoting from the Case Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, v Washington State Insurance Commissioner, and this is section three of that opinion. It's on page 4 4 6, and let me read verbatim from the opinion A-C-L-D-N argues that its memberships cannot be considered a contract for insurance because A-C-L-D-N membership does not entitle members to financial assistance. A-C-L-D-N further argues that even where it declines to provide financial assistance for a member's lawful use of force, nothing in its membership agreements would allow a member to sue for financial assistance. Okay? This is an argument that the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network made at the Washington Court of Appeals.
Our members aren't entitled to any financial assistance and if we deny there's nothing in our membership agreement that would allow a member to sue us for financial assistance. Certainly doesn't sound like a contractual obligation to pay for a lawyer if you get involved in a self-defense. Shooting doesn't sound like that to me. There's no written formalized contract here. They've made arguments at the Washington Court of Appeals and Marty's own statements essentially say they don't have to pay any money if they don't want to. There's no contractual obligation at all. Okay, so then continuing from the case on page 4 4 5, again, you can look up this case yourself. You don't have to rely on me in my statements, but I'm going to read from paragraph 14. Now, just to summarize, the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is arguing in a motion for summary judgment here, and they submit to the court declarations 13 of them from their members to the court, and here's what it says.
13 of a LDNs members submitted declarations stating that quote, at no time did the member think or believe that A-C-L-D-N was providing them as a member insurance or contractual obligation to have access to the A-C-L-D-N fund, so 13 members of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network submit declarations saying, I didn't think I was entitled to any contractual obligation to have access to that fund. No contractual obligation. I wonder if that's what the other members in the fund think. Is that what you might've thought if you were thinking of signing up with this? Well, that's the position that A-C-L-D-N took at the Washington Court of Appeals. That's what they argued to the Court of Appeals. We got no contractual obligation to provide financial assistance to anyone for any reason. Continuing from the case at paragraph 27, we do not accept A CLD N'S position that any promise to provide financial assistance is illusory because A-C-L-D-N retains discretion to withhold funds.
I think that's important, so you can see what A-C-L-D-N was arguing. Their position was that any promise to provide financial assistance is illusory. In other words, it's not an enforceable promise because we retain discretion to withhold funds at any time if we want. Court of Appeals didn't buy it, but I think it's important to note that was the position they took at the Washington Court of Appeals. Again, read this for yourself. Write in the case paragraph 27, and then finally on the point of the contract issue, if you look on the website under the section entitled The History of This Fight, which describes the court case from which I was just reading from, if you look at the bottom, it says, in our case, number one, we have no written contract of insurance with our members. Instead, our members simply join a membership organization. Is that all you thought you were getting when you signed up with the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network just joining an organization?
That's a long-winded way of saying, okay, there's no written contract here. It's really not clear what you're getting, and it certainly seems clear that you're not entitled to any funds under any circumstances with the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Just real fast in terms of this case here, what was happening is that the Washington Insurance Commissioner found that the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is essentially offering insurance and they're not licensed to provide insurance. They can't of course cover criminal acts and the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network appealed that, and this in my hand is the Court of Appeals decision affirming the finding that indeed the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network was offering under Washington Law Insurance something they're not allowed to do and therefore they're prohibited from accepting more members in Washington. Okay? Another point here I think that's important is that what I like to call the bad shoot is simply not covered with the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.
We have a video that we're going to be coming out with soon on the question of exactly what's a bad shoot. We break it up into three categories, the clearly good shoot, okay, very unlikely you're going to be charged if you're actually in a good shoot. There are some exceptions, but they're generally high profile type exceptions like the Rittenhouse case. I've done many high profile cases myself. Things are different in high profile cases, but in the ordinary case, if you're in a clearly good shoot, sure you get coverage from all these different companies. If you're in an actual legitimate act of self-defense, but almost nobody gets charged with a clearly good shoot that leaves the questionable shoot and the clearly bad shoot, don't think you will never be involved in a clearly bad shoot because as I've said on many occasions, you don't get to select the time and place of any type of an incident.
You might be in the midst of a deep sleep when something happens. You might've had a few drinks, you could just make a bad decision. You might be involved in actually a bad shoot if you are no coverage for you under the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network or any of these other programs. As best I can tell, it's the evidence for that. Take a look at the website under the section entitled Helping Members. It's right above the word education. I'm going to read directly from the information on the website. Here's what it says. We ask the attorney to estimate how much money is needed to prepare for and go to trial. When this question is settled, the network will fund the entire defense. Assuming no new evidence has surfaced that invalidates the self-defense claim. Please understand that the network has no interest in helping criminals.
What does this mean? If you're in a bad shoot, the network has no interest in helping you. Incidentally, it's a criminal defense lawyer. I'll point out that you're not a criminal unless and until you're actually convicted of a crime. Back to my email conversation with Marty, my question to him, do you cover bad shoots? Marty gave somewhat of a long answer here. Lemme get to the important part. I will read it verbatim. If a member was blatantly acting criminally as opposed to being justified, then we would not assist his defense going further. He said, we have had this occur in a couple of instances, not shootings but lesser crimes, and we explained that we will not provide coverage. They, while disappointed, seem to understand they screwed up. They know upfront we will not assist with non self-defense cases and as a fallback, we simply reserve the right not to assist in any situation, and if a prospective member cannot accept that, then we recommend they look elsewhere.
Okay? Part of that quote I read earlier, but I think it's pretty clear here exactly what Marty is saying. If you screw up no coverage for you, why are you buying this thing? If you're in a lawful self-defense shoot, you're not likely to be charged. It's when you screwed up. That's when you need a criminal defense lawyer, and it certainly doesn't appear from what Marty wrote to me that you're going to get coverage if you're in a questionable shoot or a bad shoot. This is for Marty to define. I don't know how Marty's going to exactly interpret this, but I can only read to you what he said to me, which is what I just read. Okay. Back to the case at the Washington Court of Appeals, I'm looking at paragraph 11 and I'm going to read from that. This is the Court of Appeals sort of summarizing the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network position.
Here's what they say. Receipt of funding is subject to a review of the facts of the case as known at the time, and a determination that it was a legitimate act of self-defense. Again, it's got to be a legitimate act of self-defense to get any funding here. Continuing with the case, paragraph 27, I'm going to read again verbatim from the case A-C-L-D-N explains that its review process is in place to assure the network that the fund is not wasted defending a criminal act and that the members' actions were indeed justifiable. Okay? So it's a waste of the fund's resources to defend a criminal act. Back to the website. If you look under the section with the heading, it says Providing legal support when it is most needed. If you look about almost halfway down the page, you'll find I'll read verbatim here, benefit applicable to any justifiable use of force, whether firearms related or by other illegal means of defense.
Again, it's got to be a justifiable use of force to get any benefits here. And finally, on this point, on the page of the website that says, network services to members sets it apart under helping members. I'm going to read from that first paragraph. If a member is involved in self-defense as soon as practical, he or she, either through their attorney, spouse or on their own behalf, calls the network and speaks with me conveying the details of the case. So we are assured the incident was a legitimate act of self-defense. Again, I don't know how it could be any more clearer than this. It's got to be a justified, legitimate act of self-defense going to have to explain this to Marty and his crew over there. If it's not, it's a bad shoot no coverage for you with the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. I found this interesting in the Washington Court of Appeals case, paragraph seven.
I'm just going to read from it verbatim and then you can make of it what you want. Here's what it says. About halfway through paragraph seven of the Court of Appeals case in Washington, the fund contains over $2 million and has been used to fund 22 members legal expenses following an incident involving self-defense. The amount expended by A-C-L-D-N on each member's claim varied ranging from $400 to $75,000. Of the 22 members that have received funds from A-C-L-D-N one was in Washington, in that case, A-C-L-D-N provided $2,000 to the member for legal expenses. A-C-L-D-N declined to provide funds in three instances including one instance in Washington. Okay, so it's pretty clear the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network has been around since 2011. They've had 22 instances. Three people called and said, Hey, I need funds. I've been involved in some kind of an incident and A-C-L-D-N declined to provide services.
I think it's interesting also, $400 was the low end, 400 bucks. What is that going to get you? Maybe an initial consultation with an attorney and that's it. The most they've ever paid is $75,000. Certainly not going to get you through trial, okay? You can make out of this whatever you think is appropriate out of here, but certainly seems clear they haven't paid very much out of this fund since 2011 and at least three people have been absolutely declined any financial assistance whatsoever. As Marty said in his email, yes, they were disappointed. I'm sure they were. Okay, so that gets me to the 24 7 365 emergency line. Now, it's important to note that the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network does have an emergency line, but there's probably some things you should know about it. First off, if you go to the website, I'm looking at a page here that says What we are not on the website, and I'm reading from the second line of that section verbatim, we do not have any attorneys on staff or under contract to assign to handle your case end, okay?
So they're not a law firm. We know that they got no lawyers, they got nobody to assign to your case. That's all true with the next piece of information, I think this helps fill out the issue with the emergency line. The next piece of information comes from my conversation with Marty. Here's my question, quote, who handles your 24 7 365 emergency line? Answer from Marty, the president of the company, me and at times my wife who is the operations manager, serves as my backup. We have handled this service this way for 15 years and never missed a request for services from a member. Okay, well, I think this is very nice and I'm sure Marty is very proficient on the phones. I think he does care about these. I've never met Marty's wife, but I'm sure she's very good on the phones, but neither can offer you any legal advice.
What happens if you're in an emergency situation, you're a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network and you call that emergency number and you get Marty or his wife. Marty is career law enforcement and he also has a Juris doctorate, which means he's graduated from law school, but because he's not a licensed attorney, he can't give any legal advice and of course they have no lawyers on staff or contracted out to assign to your case. I don't know about Marty's wife, but I'm guessing she's probably not a licensed attorney or he would've said that in his response to me. So while they answer the call and they can say, Hey, go find a lawyer on your own or check out one of the lawyers in our network, and I'm going to get to that in a minute too. They can't give you a lick of legal advice right when you need it.
If you're at the scene and the situation is hot and the police are on the way, who are you going to talk to? Sure, you could put a request in for service, but you won't be getting any legal advice when you need it if you're a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Incidentally, none of this is a problem with the attorneys on retainer. We're actually a law firm. We have lots of lawyers on staff can call us twenty four seven three sixty five and not just speak to an attorney, but speak to an attorney who's actually going to be a member of the defense team on your case, and it doesn't have to be a justified act of self-defense. We represent people who actually have been involved in bad shoots all the time because we're a real law firm that handles criminal defense cases with criminal defense attorneys on staff.
We could give you advice right there and we can defend you even if you screwed up and you were involved in a bad shoot, no problem. The next issue I have with the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is your lawyer or you if you'll remember, is required to talk to the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, okay? This is a huge problem with attorney client privilege. Why is this a problem? Because if you are speaking to somebody who's not your lawyer, a licensed attorney representing you on the case, or at least somebody you're intending to get legal advice from, all of that is discoverable by the prosecution in your case. Don't think you have to talk to these guys. I'm now reading from the website under the section entitled, providing Legal Support when it is Most Needed, and I'm about in the middle of the paragraph and I'm going to read verbatim quote, the member and his or her attorney must provide facts of the case to show that their use of force was a legitimate case of self-defense.
The member's attorney is responsible for providing those details to the network prior to disbursement of monies to a bail agent. So you get some benefits, but you or your lawyer and sometimes both have to speak to them, okay? This is a real problem. If the prosecutor is aware of this, the prosecutor simply does a deposition with whoever it is at the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network and asks the question, tell me everything the defendant or the defendant's lawyer had to say to you about the case. Big problem with attorney-client privilege later on the website under the heading, what does my membership fee by me in the second paragraph, reading again verbatim quote. In addition, the member and his or her attorney must provide facts of the case to show that their use of force was a legitimate case of self-defense. The member's attorney is responsible for providing those details to the network prior to disbursement of monies to a bail agent.
Okay? This couldn't be any more clear. You got to provide confidential information. Why do you think they want that information? I don't know, but it seems clear from this that Marty and his Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network don't want to provide any funds if it's a bad shoot, do you think that might be what they're looking for? So besides the problems with attorney client privilege here, because you're requiring the attorney and the client to provide information to the network, you're coughing up a lot of information that's discoverable to the state. You might very well be sinking your own ship if you deliver facts that make that shoot questionable or maybe even a bad shoot, clearly there's not going to be any coverage for you if this isn't a quote legitimate act of self-defense. Okay? One of the things that I kind of like about the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is they have this great network of attorneys, okay?
None of 'em are on staff and there are some things you should know about the right in the section right at the beginning on the website. Under network affiliated attorneys and experts lemme read verbatim, members enjoy exclusive access to a list of network affiliated attorneys. The network does not hold itself out as providing any legal, personal or other advice. The network also does not make any recommendation or endorsement as to the expertise or qualifications of any legal advisor. Members are encouraged to contact an attorney, investigate the attorney's level of expertise and qualifications in set up an attorney-client relationship end. Okay, so they got this network. It's great that they have that network, but they don't make any recommendation or endorsement as to the expertise or qualifications so that you've got a group of lawyers, a huge list of lawyers you can select from. I have a list too, it's called the Yellow Pages or Get Online and Search Attorneys.
That gives you a list. I can't make any representations about the expertise or qualifications. What good is a list of lawyers if they make no endorsement as to the expertise or qualifications of any of them? You're kind of on your own here. Yeah, there's this network. It's a list of lawyers as best I can tell, maybe not such an impressive benefit, but there's a list of lawyers you can select from. So if you are going to get a lawyer and they are going to pay for the lawyer, they've decided it's a legitimate act of self-defense. How much money are you going to get to pay this lawyer? It's not so clear. If you read the materials, looking from the website again under the page that says Network services to members sets it apart. In the last full paragraph of that page I'm going to read verbatim, each individual situation will be different, so there is no set amount that we automatically pay, but instead I work with the attorney to make sure we provide a sufficient retainer to handle court appearances, interacting with law enforcement, investigating the incident, dealing with the press, and provides other legal services needed for full representation.
If the member needs bail money, the network can assist the member with posting bail, but that is not automatic. How much do you get for a lawyer? You can turn to the next page in the next paragraph and here's what it says. I'm going to, again, I'll read verbatim quote. We ask the attorney to estimate how much money is needed to prepare for and go to trial. When this question is settled, the network will fund the entire defense assuming no new evidence has surfaced that invalidates the self-defense claim. Please understand that the network has no interest in helping criminals. Alright, there's a lot in here. It seems pretty obvious to me, but when this question is settled, what do you mean when this question is settled? How do you settle that question? The attorney says, I need this much and they pay it or don't pay it.
Maybe they say, no, we won't pay that much, we'll pay this much. I don't know, but it's sure not clear in here how much money you get out of the fund if you are involved in a legitimate shoot and no new evidence has surfaced that invalidates the self-defense claim. Just to be sure. If you look at the Washington case and you go to paragraph 29, I think it makes it very clear here what I was just reading from the website, I'm going to read verbatim from the case. A-C-L-D-N argues that even if it decides to provide monetary support to its members, that support is not indemnification nor in agreement to pay a specified amount, okay? So it's pretty clear that it's not clear how much money you get even if they decide to provide monetary support to its members, okay? The same can be said about bail.
Yeah, you have a right to bail as a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, but how much, again, I read this earlier from the page on the website that says, network services to members sets it apart right at the end of the last full paragraph. If the member needs bail money, the network can assist the member with posting bail, but it is not automatic to see this link for a complete, I saw the link, there was no explanation of how much bail money you get. Again, read it for yourself. How much do you get if you need money to post a bond to get out of jail? Not clear. This issue actually came up in the Washington State Appeals case. If you look at paragraph eight from that case in the middle of the paragraph I'm quoting verbatim, the brochure further explains that when a member uses force in self-defense, the network immediately sends up to $25,000 to the member's attorney and can't provide up to $25,000 in bail assistance.
Alright, well that seems pretty clear, but then there's a footnote. Footnote number one, and if you go back to the end of the case and you look at footnote number one and you read it, here's what it says, quote, A-C-L-D-N alleged that it removed the quote up to $25,000 language from its website before the OICs Enforcement action and claims that it no longer specifies the amount of funding it provides members. Okay? That makes it pretty clear they specifically removed that so they can argue we don't specify how much funding we give our members, even in the event they do provide funding. So again, what is it you're getting here? How much are you getting under what circumstances at best not clear. Okay? I don't want this video to get too long, so lemme summarize a few things that come from my conversation with Marty and my email with him.
I can say this with good confidence, no coverage. If you're on duty and you get into a self-defense incident, no coverage if you are a prohibited possessor, no coverage. If you're involved in a self-defense incident and you're using an illegal weapon and other areas, I've talked about all the different ways or some of the different ways you can be found to have an illegal weapon, no coverage If you have an accidental or negligent discharge, no coverage as a victim. Now this is different. I think the attorneys on retainer program is the only one that would cover you. If you're involved in a self-defense incident, you don't get charged. The bad guy gets charged. We'll still defend you as a victim in court. That's right. We'll call the prosecutor, do our best to get the bad guy charged. If the bad guy does get charged, we'll show up in court, complain about the plea.
The guy takes a deal or he is found guilty, will show up at his sentencing and pound the table and request whatever you think is the appropriate sentence. Of course, no coverage here for members of Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network for victims and no coverage for unrelated other felony charges. That's right. If you check out the attorneys on retainer, you'll find a section called Non-Applicable Legal Matters, and it's a way to get representation on any felony charge. If it's completely unrelated to self-defense, it's not free. You still got to pay something, but it's part of your benefit package with attorneys on retainer. I found this interesting. This is on the how to join section of the website, which I think is very interesting. By the way, it seems you can't sign up online. It seems like you got to do this snail mail. Take a look at the how to join page.
I don't know, maybe there's a way to sign up online, but if there is, I certainly couldn't find it, but I think what's interesting here is under applicant's statement, the last part of that, I'm going to read it again verbatim. I understand that any grant of benefits is limited to lawful acts of self-defense with no additional criminal charges associated with the incident. I don't know really what that means, but oftentimes a charge will come with many other charges. There's a group of charges. We specifically cover this in the attorneys on retainer written fee agreement that both parties signed. Yes, we cover those if they arise out of the same incident. It's not clear to me that you get any coverage if there are additional criminal charges along with the lawful act of self-defense. Again, I don't know why you would even be charged if you acted in a lawful act of self-defense.
Well, it does happen. Very, very rare. Lawful acts of self-defense are lawful acts of self-defense. They're not criminal charges and of course, if it's not a lawful act of self-defense, there's no coverage with the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network or virtually any of these other programs that I'm aware of. And of course the last thing about the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network is they are not allowed as a result of this case that I've been quoting from to accept any new members in Washington state. All right, if you're in Washington state, this is a problem. If you're not in Washington state, maybe this isn't a problem. I don't know if they have other similar problems in other states. Alright, so I went through a lot of of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, but like I said at the beginning, I think Marty's a good guy and I think he's trying to do the right thing as best as he can and there are some good things about the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network and I want to take a few of those off.
To be fair, first, this is probably the best company out there. If what you're looking for are training resources, they got an awful lot of really good hardcore training resources. That's a plus for the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. They also cover misdemeanors. That's really important. Many companies do not cover misdemeanors. Okay? I'll point out misdemeanors are generally small matters. You might have to come out of your pocket somewhere with $3,500 to maybe $7,500 somewhere in there. They're generally not life-changing experiences. Misdemeanors are the smaller of the variety of criminal offenses. We have felonies and misdemeanors. Most crimes that are committed with a firearm across the nation are going to be charged as felonies, but the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network covers you even if you're charged with a misdemeanor. They also cover appeals. If there is, according to Marty quote, there is a legitimate point to appeal end, so that's a good point.
I think for the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, they're fairly inexpensive, which I think is a good point for the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Maybe it makes sense if you understand. They really are not obligated by contract to actually have to pay in virtually any case from what I can see, and they do not exclude alcohol or domestic violence incidents like several other companies do. Those are all pluses for the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. In summary, the Attorneys on Retainer program, okay, this is my program. I'm partial to it, no surprise here, but I think it's the better program. Why do I think it's the better program? We do not exclude criminal acts. That's right, as long as you intended to act in self-defense, right? Here are the three boxes you got to check for attorneys on retainer. Number one, you're charged with a felony.
Number two, you have to say, look, at least I intended in good faith to act in self-defense, and number three, it arises out of something that happened after you signed up in the Attorney's on retainer program. Okay? That's kind of a no-brainer. Why do we have that? Okay. I don't want to defend the bank robber for free as part of the attorney's on retainer program. Somebody who sticks a gun in somebody's face. They're not even trying to act in self-defense, but if you're trying to act in self-defense, you could say, look, in good faith, I reasonably and in good faith, tried to act in self-defense. You are covered even if it turns out to be a criminal act. Even if you plead guilty, even if you're found guilty. Yes, we have several coverage as well. You heard several of these other companies, if you plead guilty or you're found guilty, well, they might have impressive figures on the civil side.
If your coverage ends, it's worthless to you. We still defend you on the civil side. Even if you take a plea, that's always the client's choice. Look, my team likes to go to trial. You get the entire team if you're part of the attorneys on retainer program and you get charged with a felony arising out of a self-defense incident, but you get to decide whether or not you want to take a plea. We like to try cases at our firm, but that's not always in the client's interest. But just because you take a plea like 95% plus of the people in the criminal justice system do doesn't mean if you're with attorneys on retainer, you lose your coverage. On the civil side, we cover that straight through trial all the way through. No additional charges. We have many other things. We don't have any of these other exclusions.
We don't care if it's an illegal weapon, if you're a prohibited possessor, if it happened in a gun-free zone, if you used alcohol or drugs or it's a domestic violence. None of that's any problem with attorneys on retainer. We also will cover you if the bad guy is charged. You are a victim in the criminal case. No problem, and like I alluded to earlier in this video, we even have a mechanism to represent you because we're a fully functioning law firm. We can defend you on any felony charge. It's not free. You get a substantial discount. You can look at our fee agreement. It's online for anybody to see. Go to attorneys on retainer us. Most of the questions that you'll have about attorneys on retainer will be right there. If they're not, you reach out and my team will get an answer back to you straight away.
Okay? In summary, yeah, I like Marty. I think Marty's a good guy in the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Probably not the worst, but it's very difficult to figure out what exactly is covered, what you get when you are a member. Part of that is because there's no formal written contract. You got to piece this thing together from what you see on the website. It's not clear what you get in terms of benefits, what the cap is, if there are caps, when things are covered, when things are not covered, clearly a bad shoot is not covered. The emergency line, sure, you can call an emergency and they can get the ball rolling, but you're not going to get any legal advice on that emergency line. They have no lawyers. They can't give you any legal advice right there when you need it. They got a great network maybe, but they don't guarantee any of those lawyers in that network anything about their experience or qualification, so I'm not sure how much that's worth and they can't even sign you up in their own state.
If you're in Washington, they've been determined to be insurance and they certainly can't cover criminal acts and they can't sign you up. If you're in Washington, it's an expensive, there are some good things about it. I like the training. Marty's a good guy, but if what you're looking for is a lawyer to defend you in the event you get involved in a shoot and you get charged, I can almost guarantee you that's at best going to be a questionable shoot and at worst it's going to be a bad shoot it. That's what you're looking for. If you're looking for experienced qualified lawyers. I've been practicing 30 years and I've been doing major felonies from first degree murder with the death penalty alleged all the way down to little misdemeanors that entire time. If you want entire team of dedicated, think outside the box type criminal defense lawyers who don't want to hold your hand and walk you through the system, but want to fight your case if that's what you want, attorneys on Retainer is the only show in town.
As I say in all these videos, don't take my word for it. Read the contract. Oh, that's right. There's no contract here. Read the website and piece it together as best you can. Again, my name is Mark Victor, owner and founder of the Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm. You can check out our law firm@attorneysforfreedom.com. Everything you want to know about our Attorneys on retainer program is right there at attorneys on retainer us. If you have any questions, just reach out. Someone from my team will get right back. You're very transparent. I will be coming up with a video soon critiquing the attorney's on retainer program with the same vigor I do with every other program. Do your own research, come to your own conclusions, make your own judgements here. Get the program that's best for you. If you like this video, please like in subscribe. If you want to leave a comment, if you bring it civilized, you'll get a response from me and my team. Again, my name's Mark Victor. If you want to reach out to me, mark MAR c@attorneysforfreedom.com. Peace.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ngh2gNISl8
Credit: Marc Victor, Esq Attorney’s On Retainer
For more details on obtaining a carry permit, check out our page on the Maryland Carry Permit.