In part two of his recap, ED Legal Correspondent Larry Kaplan discusses the top security takeaways from the 2025 EXPO legal panel.
(Note: This article was originally published in the January issue of ED Magazine. Part one of the legal panel recap was published in the November issue and can be read here.)
The legal panel at this year’s EXPO shifted its focus from external threats to the nightclub operator’s testimony under oath: The “Club Operator on Trial.” Using a revived interactive format from two decades ago, three renowned First Amendment attorneys—Barry Covert, Gary Edinger and Brad Shafer—conducted mock depositions of fellow attorney Will King, acting as a caricatured club owner.
These staged depositions, based on real lawsuits and investigations, explored the industry’s three most pressing legal risks: Dancer classification/employment law, use-of-force/security protocols and liquor liability with substance control. After each deposition, panelists examined missteps and provided actionable strategies to strengthen operations and legal defenses.
In part one of our legal panel recap, published in the November issue of ED Magazine, panelist Brad Shafer examined dancer classification issues. Here in part two, we’ll revisit the segment during which Edinger shifted the focus to the high-stakes realm of security operations, where the wrong personnel, poor training, weak policies or a single mishandled incident can lead to devastating negligence claims.
Inside the deposition
Mock club owner King stated that he is the president of the “Lady Parts” club. He acknowledged that he was the designated representative for that entity in the case, responsible for responding to interrogatories and document production. However, he seemed uncertain about basic legal terms, saying, “Yeah, I’m probably the guy.” When Edinger asked him, “What’s an interrogatory?” King still appeared unfamiliar with the term—despite having signed sworn answers.
“If you don’t have a written policy for your employees as to use of force, when they can use force, how they can use force, you’re going to get killed in one of these cases.”
— Brad Shafer
The incident under scrutiny involved a performer known as “Badonka Donk” allegedly slapping a customer, Vic Tim, and then summoning security head Ragin Fisk. Fisk, according to the account, “proceeded to hit him in the face with a beer bottle… knocked him unconscious” and dragged him outside.
Edinger pointed out contradictions between King’s sworn interrogatory answers—which claimed no knowledge of the event, no police presence, no incident report and no video evidence—and the contents of the police report. When asked to explain, King responded vaguely: “I’m not really sure who wrote this.” He acknowledged the police report but downplayed its significance, stating, “I mean, that’s what the cops say, I guess,” and “Cops are going to be cops, what do you want?”
Security oversight appeared minimal. Fisk was publicly identified as a “bouncer” on social media, yet King admitted he never performed a background check, and he was unaware Fisk had two felony assault convictions. King stressed, “It’s hard to find people without a criminal record. What do you want?” He further admitted there was no training program, policy manual or written expectations for staff, saying, “Not so much… We’re not doing manuals.”
Evidence preservation was also an issue. The club’s surveillance system covers the premises, but videos are deleted after approximately one day. Although a request to preserve footage was made two days after the incident, King admitted he did not keep it: “No… because it got deleted.”
Insurance and legal counsel shortcomings compounded the problems. King confirmed the club had no coverage for the claim, explaining, “I tried to do something with insurance, but they said no.” He acknowledged letting prior coverage lapse, saying, “I think that sounds right, probably.” His current lawyer is primarily a traffic and divorce attorney: “He did my divorce.”
Key takeaway: King’s testimony portrayed an unprepared representative, contradictory sworn statements, inadequate security oversight, a failure to preserve evidence and a lack of insurance safety net—all factors that significantly increase legal exposure in a security/use-of-force case.
Procedures and paper trails
Edinger used the mock cross-examination of club owner King to highlight serious and avoidable security mistakes common in adult nightclubs. He cautioned that liability insurance often fails to cover major incidents, explaining, “The exclusions exclude most of the biggest claims. Shootings are usually excluded.” While insurance has its limits, he emphasized that robust operational practices can significantly mitigate legal exposure.
He advised replacing the term “bouncer” with “professional security staff” to project credibility, noting that King’s own description of his head of security as “a bouncer and security guy” demonstrated a lack of professionalism. Background checks, Edinger said, are essential for removing individuals with violent histories. He also warned against hiring friends for security positions because staff must appear “reasonably professional” to outsiders.
Edinger urged clubs to have a detailed, written security manual that outlines rules and acceptable use of force. Such documentation helps owners argue that misconduct was unforeseeable if it violates established policy. King’s admission, “We’re not doing manuals,” revealed another major vulnerability. Preventive measures, including weapon screening and the effective use of surveillance video, were described as critical—with Edinger noting that video evidence can either harm or help, depending on the staff’s conduct.
He stressed that if police respond to an assault, clubs must immediately preserve the video for potential criminal and civil cases. Systems should prevent overwriting footage, yet King admitted the footage from the incident “got deleted” despite a request to preserve it—a failure Edinger warned could result in damaging spoliation claims.
Panelist Shafer reinforced the need for written use-of-force policies, stating, “If you don’t have a written policy for your employees as to use of force, when they can use force, how they can use force, you’re going to get killed in one of these cases.” Shafer encouraged ongoing security training from the outset, whether through in-person instruction, Zoom sessions, or online modules. He also emphasized the importance of documenting background checks, written procedures and training completions to demonstrate diligence in legal proceedings. “Look, we did a background check for them, we gave them written procedures and policies of what to do and we trained them ahead of time. Those are the three things you’ve got to have.”
Panelist King advised that outside security vendors require the same scrutiny as in-house staff. King cautioned, “Hire only reputable, qualified providers—or it’s going to come back on you. Make them prove they have in-force insurance. Ensure that they have a structured training regimen. Ensure that the owner is not a scammer. It’ll take a little bit of your time, but make sure that you’re hiring a legit person, because just because you hire somebody you know who’s an independent contractor, or someone outside of your club, you can get tagged for what they do while they’re there.” And King warned that clubs can “still be held liable for the actions of independent contractors.”
Key takeaways
Overall, the three panelists’ comments underscored the same lesson: professionalize security operations, enforce and document clear policies, train from day one, rigorously vet all personnel and preserve key evidence. Without these measures, club owners face high legal risk and, as Edinger vividly warned, plaintiff attorneys could “cram it right up your ass” in court.
Please note that this article provides a brief summary of complex legal issues and should be used for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide an exhaustive analysis of these matters or any specific legal advice or recommendation. Laws vary by state and municipality. The positions and opinions expressed by the attorneys represented here are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect those of ED Publications. Club operators and others are strongly encouraged to consult their attorneys and other professionals for specific advice on how these issues will affect their businesses and what measures to take. Larry Kaplan and ED Publications do not guarantee the accuracy of this information.
Larry Kaplan is a broker of adult nightclubs and retail stores, a principal in the Strategic Club Consultants training entity and the Executive Director of the ACE of Michigan adult nightclub state trade association. For 25 years, he has served as legal correspondent for ED Publications. Contact him at 313-815-3311 or larry@kaplanclubsales.com.
Barry N. Covert is a trial lawyer with 30+ years of nationwide success in liquor liability, criminal defense, zoning, constitutional and cybercrime cases. Contact him at 716-849-1333 or bcovert@lglaw.com.
Gary S. Edinger is a partner at Benjamin, Aaronson, Edinger and Patanzo, PA. His practice focuses primarily on First Amendment litigation. Contact him at 353-338-4440 or gsedinger12@gmail.com.
Will King, a senior attorney at McDowell Hetherington LLP, represents adult clubs nationwide in First Amendment challenges, regulatory matters and employment disputes. Contact him at 713-221-3840 or william.king@mhllp.com.
Brad Shafer has represented adult entertainment businesses exclusively, nationwide, including before the U.S. Supreme Court, for 40+ years, and is the leading defender of dancer employee/independent contractor cases. Contact him at 517-886-6560 or brad@bradshaferlaw.com.
