CEO Russell Kolins Appears on 1210 WPHT Talk Radio – Philadelphia
With more than five decades of experience in physical security consulting and litigation, Russell Kolins shares how proactive measures, clear policies, proper training, and strong security compliance can prevent costly incidents and protect businesses from liability.
In this discussion with attorney Edith Pearce, Kolins explores topics such as bar and nightclub security compliance, casino security regulations, and the importance of proper certification (such as maintaining a valid guard card) for anyone working in bar, nightclub, or casino security. Together, they outline how clear bar security laws and staff training help businesses stay compliant and protect patrons.
Featured on this interview:
Edith Pearce, Esq, Personal Injury Lawyer at The Pearce Law Firm
Russell Kolins, CEO & Security Expert at Kolins Security Group
Key Takeaways
- Foreseeability is the foundation of security. If a risk can be anticipated, steps must be taken to prevent it — otherwise businesses risk negligence claims.
- Policies don’t exist unless they’re written. Clear documentation, backed by training and enforcement, is critical for compliance and legal protection.
- Training turns policy into practice. Security measures only work when staff are properly trained and held accountable for enforcement.
Abridged Interview Transcript
Host: We’ve got a great broadcast. This is right in my wheelhouse. When you mentioned who our guest was and what we’re gonna talk about today and how it relates to the law and what you do every day, I got really, really excited. So if you would, Edith, please introduce our guest.
EP: Yes, so I’m so happy to have with us today Russell Kolins—Kolins with a K—of Kolins Security Group. Russell is an amazing expert in the field of security. And this is an area that’s on a lot of people’s minds today.
Host: People are probably wondering, well, what does security have to do with the law and what an attorney does? And my answer was, it is everything. There’s so much to talk about. If you would, tell our listeners a little bit about yourself, your background, your experience, and the company.
RK: Well, sure. Kolins Security Group is a group of experts in various disciplines of security and law enforcement. About 70% of our practice is litigation, which means let’s get to the lawyers. So lawyers get cases like negligent security cases, and they need an expert to be able to educate the lawyer. And if it gets to a trial, then the expert has to educate the jury with respect to that type of security and for that type of case. The other 30% of my practice is based on consulting, and that’s consulting businesses, hospitality industry, the real estate industry. And when I say real estate, I’m talking about apartments, condominiums, and the security that they have to know and understand in order to operate their business as property managers of a particular residential building. And that’s what I do. I’ve just celebrated my 50th anniversary in public practice and about to celebrate my 51st anniversary in private practice in August of this year.
Host: Your team is incredibly qualified. If you would, talk a little bit about the individuals that you have on your team, because these are major heavyweights, not only in education, but in military service, the whole deal.
RK: I’ve been a mentor for over 15 years. There are a lot of law enforcement and military personnel who want to make that transition from the public to the private sector. And part of that transition is getting rid of the mindset that developed when they were a law enforcement officer. There is such a thing called cop mentality, which, when you’re a sworn law enforcement officer, you must have. But when you make the transition from the public sector into the private sector, it’s a whole different world. Yes, you can use your experience, your training, your education that helped you develop that cop mentality when you were in the public sector. But in the private sector, the rules change. And so you use your knowledge. But as far as the practical application of what you do, it’s totally different.
EP: On the civil side, what we are looking at is our policies, procedures, and the training of those individuals to follow it to keep people who are invited to be on their premises safe. They’re open for business. They live there. They’re renting there. They’re a guest of somebody who is there. To keep those people safe and secure, and that’s where this comes together between security and law.
Host: As an establishment owner, it probably would have been more beneficial for me, for the liability situation, and for customers if we had consulted with somebody like [Russell] at the beginning, so that we didn’t have to find out the hard way how many people we need, what is legally required. Does that make sense?
“You cannot not have security in your bar or nightclub. And the bigger the bar, the more security you need.”
RK: Makes all the sense in the world. A lot of people who buy bars don’t think they need security. What they say is, “Okay, if something happens at my bar, I’ll just call 911 and have the police come.” But by that point, it’s too late. Police are reactionary—they respond to a call; they’re not inside your bar. The call goes out over the radio to an officer in a squad car, the officer shows up however long after the call comes in, and all the damage is already done. Somebody could be injured, and that’s it.
In the civil arena, incidents are preventable. Prevention deals with anticipating where and how things could go wrong. That’s where training and education come in—you have to be prepared. You cannot operate a bar or nightclub without security. And the bigger the bar, the more security you need. There are a lot of factors to consider. If we had five hours, I could go into more detail, but here’s the nutshell:
Owning a bar already puts you at heightened risk. Why? Because you’re selling alcohol and people are drinking. Your managers, owners, bartenders, and servers all need training in Responsible Alcohol Management. In Pennsylvania, that training has been required since January 2017—before that, it was voluntary. In New Jersey, it’s not mandatory yet, but hopefully it will be someday. Responsible owners ensure that service staff, security personnel, and managers are trained in Responsible Alcohol Management.
What does that training do? It teaches you what to look for when someone falls through the cracks, when their behavior changes, or when they show signs of visible intoxication—and how to handle that situation.
Now, switching over to security, since we’re short on time: Security personnel must also be trained in many areas. In Philadelphia, we have the bouncer’s law. I co-authored this law, which applies to all retail liquor establishments that employ security guards—or anyone acting in a security capacity, like door personnel or car checkers. The law requires that all security staff be certified.
This law has been in effect since April 1, 2012. I co-authored it, testified before City Council, and wrote the criteria for trainers and training. Here’s how it works: When guards are hired, the bar must ensure they are certified and have guard cards to prove their qualification. The certification is valid for two years.
Host: Hold on to that for one second, because we have to go to break right now. [Break.] We’re back to the program again. So if you would, Russell, continue discussing the qualifications of security.
“If you don’t know what the rules are, you don’t know what to enforce.”
RK: Sure. Edith will talk later, but I mentioned the responsibility of the bar owner. That responsibility is to provide a reasonably safe place to do business. To do that, the owner needs to understand the demographics of the bar and consider what measures are necessary to maintain that safe environment. Edith can cover the legal side of that, but if part of the remedy is security, then that security must be qualified.
How are they qualified? Through certification, education, and training. And what does that training cover? Not only the legal principles under the Bouncer’s Law in Philadelphia—or the relevant laws in other states—but also the bar’s own policies.
Bars—and really, all businesses—must have policies. Policies work best when they’re written. There’s an old adage in the security industry: if it’s not written, it doesn’t exist. Your policies should be written and taught to your employees.
Let’s focus on security for a moment. For example, if your policy includes a dress code—say, wifebeater shirts aren’t allowed—security must enforce that policy. They might say, “Sir, you’re not meeting our dress code, so you cannot enter.” If the person objects, the bouncer uses the training they received in a bona fide Bouncer Training Program to handle the situation. One of the best programs in the city is with Iannucci.
Host: I know him.
RK: Yeah, everybody does. He does the best training in the city. Bottom line: he teaches security personnel how to manage these situations. You’re going to get objections and pushback from customers—especially those who’ve had a few drinks, whether at that bar or elsewhere. Trained security personnel know how to handle that because of their training. And just to emphasize: if you don’t have policies or rules—because that’s what policies are—you don’t know what to enforce. Again, if you don’t know what the rules are, you don’t know what to enforce. I just wanted to make that clear.
Host: And Edith, if you would, where does that play into what you do?
EP: I generally classify these cases as negligent security cases. They involve multiple layers of issues that we examine whenever an injury occurs. Sometimes, the problem gets pushed outside, but that doesn’t mean it’s no longer the establishment’s responsibility just because it crossed the threshold of the door.
Security’s job isn’t only to recognize a problem—it’s also to address it, defuse it, and handle it. As a lawyer representing clients in these matters, I look at several important factors.
First, we look at the establishment’s policies and whether they were followed. If the policies are outdated, we double-check them. It’s important for clients to contact us immediately after an incident because video evidence is crucial—we want inside video, outside video, and even video from nearby establishments to understand what happened.
We examine the environment carefully: lighting inside, lighting outside, and whether security personnel had the opportunity to see and respond to the incident. If a criminal act occurred on the premises, we assess whether it happened due to insufficient lighting or inadequate security measures. This applies to any place—parking lots, retail establishments, residential properties, condominiums, apartment complexes—anywhere invitees are expected to be.
“Invitee” is the legal term for someone who is invited onto a property. When someone invites a person onto their property, they are responsible for keeping that person safe. When an incident happens and someone is injured—often seriously, like concussions or other head injuries—these cases typically involve assaults or batteries.
We examine the policies and procedures, whether they were followed, and any missed opportunities for corrective measures that could have prevented the incident. These are the factors we focus on in negligent security cases.
Host: How often do situations at bars or similar establishments get out of control because the security personnel are unqualified?
“If it’s foreseeable, it’s preventable.”
RK: That’s exactly why City Council called me in 2011 to review the program they had in Philadelphia at the time—which was basically nonexistent. There was a five-page article in the Daily News with five egregious stories about bouncers assaulting customers. One involved a customer being dumped over a railing to a sublevel, leaving them almost like a vegetable. Another at Reading Terminal involved someone being used as a ramrod and taken outside; they raised their hand to protect themselves, and it was flayed from palm to elbow—you could see all the bone and ligaments. Horrific.
Those were just a couple of cases, and every one of them was on the plaintiff’s side, represented by me. City Council saw this and said, “We have to do something.” That’s when I recommended that bouncers needed training and certification. The bill was drafted, signed into law, and the training program began.
As I said earlier, if you don’t know the rules, you don’t know what to enforce. And if you don’t know how to enforce the rules, you act on your own, which is dangerous. That’s why proper training is so important.
Also, as we talked about before, police are reactive; security staff in a bar are proactive. That’s a key part of prevention—if something is foreseeable, it’s preventable. Trained personnel watch what’s going on, spot potential problems, and then, as you said, Joe, defuse or de-escalate situations. That’s the key to properly secured bar premises.
Host: Edith, we’ve got about a minute before the break.
EP: When we talk about prevention and being proactive, I’ve seen cases where interactions between customers were treated as “entertainment”—like, “Oh, it’s a girl-on-girl play. Who cares?” But it’s not entertainment. It needs to be stopped before it gets out of control.
I’ve seen poor interactions inside a bar spill outside, leading to assaults that could have been prevented if security had managed the situation correctly inside. Facilities—bars, restaurants, or any public venue—need the ability to defuse situations. They have to prevent conflicts both on the premises and outside.
If necessary, that includes knowing when to bring in the police and how to do it. The most important thing is handling incidents early. Most of these situations, and the serious injuries that can result, could be completely avoided with proactive management.
Host: [Break.] Edith, we often talk about how change happens in the courtroom. Do you feel that the change?
EP: Well, I think in the courtroom, juries are bright. They understand that businesses should have policies and procedures in place and that those procedures are supposed to be followed. When an expert like Russell explains to the jury what policies and procedures a bar did—or didn’t—have, and what they failed to do, it shows that this kind of incident was not only foreseeable but also preventable if proper measures had been followed.
Juries understand that. Especially today, people expect business owners to follow these standards because every patron is trusting the establishment to keep them safe. They’re out having a good time, spending money, and they have a reasonable expectation of security. That’s where policies become critical.
I also want to expand this beyond bars to places where more people are involved—apartment complexes, condominium complexes, business complexes, and schools. In our city, security in these locations is just as important.
Host: Russell, in your position, the rules and standards are obviously different for a bar or nightclub compared to a school situation. Are there different types of training for each?
RK: Oh, absolutely. In Pennsylvania, there are specific standards written for school security, and instructors appointed as certified school security trainers must follow those standards. Can I take a minute to talk about apartment complexes?
Host: Yeah, go ahead.
“You have to take reasonable measures to secure each property individually. Just like bars, every apartment complex is unique—everyone is as different as a fingerprint.”
RK: The basic rule for security is that doors must have functioning locks, and windows need locks too. Beyond that, you have to take reasonable measures to secure each property individually. Just like bars, every apartment complex is unique—everyone is as different as a fingerprint.
You need to conduct a risk assessment to identify vulnerabilities, threats, and what measures should be taken to prevent breaches. That might include evaluating lighting. There are standards for lighting, but no law mandates a specific type. A security consultant or practitioner can recommend the proper measures to secure a property.
I should note, though, that you can’t prevent all crime. My example is Ronald Reagan—he was surrounded by the Secret Service, and yet John Hinckley shot him. Still, you must take reasonable measures. In the civil arena, as Edith will explain, if reasonable measures aren’t taken, that’s where negligence comes in.
EP: Absolutely. When we assess what is reasonable, we consider many factors: lighting, foot traffic, overall area traffic, and the surrounding environment. Property owners must understand not just their property, but what’s happening in the surrounding areas.
When we handle cases involving assaults on a property that result in serious injuries, we ask: Was the property owner reasonable? Should they have anticipated these events? Did they take steps to prevent them? We examine things like roving security guards—are they trained? Do they actually patrol? What is the property owner aware of, and are they following up? These factors help determine whether the security measures were reasonable.
Host: How many owners or managers are proactive?
EP: In court, we often see that owners are reactive rather than proactive. Many may start with a written policy, but over time, as management changes, the policy is not reviewed or followed. New staff may not be trained on the policy. Sometimes people think, “Oh, someone told me what to do once,” but that’s not sufficient.
This is where the downfalls occur. Many organizations start with a plan, but over time, gaps emerge because of changes. They fail to continuously train and follow through—from management down to the personnel performing the work.
Host: Yeah, unfortunately, rising insurance premiums often serve as the wake-up call. That’s when inexperienced owners end up calling Russell—sometimes after appearing in the news. In the end, education, consistent training, and being proactive outweigh the cost of reactive measures—both for safety and for financial reasons. We’ll have more from the Lawyer2Lawyer Network after the break. [Break.]
Let’s talk a little bit about Act 235 and what type of security that is. What’s the difference between an Act 235 individual and a regularly trained security guard?
“If an Act 235 guard works in a bar, they must also be certified under the bouncer’s law.”
RK: Let me explain the difference between an Act 235 guard and a bouncer working in a bar or nightclub. An Act 235 guard is someone who has completed a formal training program and, if they pass the exam, is legally permitted to carry a gun while on duty at the workplace.
Does that qualify someone to be a security guard in a bar? No. It only qualifies them to carry a firearm, which is usually a very bad idea in a bar setting.
In Philadelphia, the bouncer’s law still applies. If an Act 235 guard works in a bar, they must also be certified under the bouncer’s law. Many bar owners don’t realize this—they think that hiring an Act 235 guard is sufficient. But without the bouncer’s law certification, they’re actually violating the law. So, an Act 235 guard cannot work in a bar unless they also have the proper bouncer certification. Does that make sense?
Host: Absolutely. Edith, when representing someone who has been negligently harmed, how often do you encounter establishments that don’t check certifications? How important is that? And how much does an owner’s lack of knowledge or training about security factor into incidents?
EP: Unfortunately, serious injuries often happen where security protocols aren’t followed or staff aren’t properly trained. If staff were certified and following procedures, these incidents either wouldn’t happen or wouldn’t result in such severe injuries.
Even if a policy exists, it may not be enforced. There can be a “mob mentality” among security personnel, where one person’s behavior feeds off another’s, which is not helpful. That’s why training is critical—staff must learn to defuse situations. A major gap I see is the failure to practice defusion in training, not just teach it.
Host: Absolutely. We only have a couple of minutes left. Russell, for anyone listening who wants to take a class or have their staff trained, how can they get in touch?
RK: Just to kolinssecuritygroup.com. You can also look up the schools on the managing director’s website. In my experience, the number-one school is Philadelphia Nightclub Security at Iannucci. I’m happy to talk to anyone and answer questions. There are so many aspects we haven’t even touched today, simply because of time.
Host: And we’ll definitely do Part 2. Before we go, Edith, can you give your contact information?
EP: Sure. I’m Edith Pearce of thepearcelawfirm.com, 215-557-8686. If anyone has been in these kinds of situations, please give us a call. We’d be happy to talk to you, see if we can help.
Host: I want to thank everybody for tuning in to the Lawyer2Lawyer Network. I want to thank our co-host, Edith Pearce, of the Pearce Law Firm, and Edith’s guest, Russell Kolins, of Kolins Security Group. You guys have been incredible.
