Unlicensed Security Service Providers

This post may evoke discomfort, disagreement, or defensiveness, but its significance remains undeniable.

?

As a licensed security company owner, I find it morally unacceptable that our industry tolerates individuals operating without proper licensing, insurance, workers' compensation, and adherence to legal business practices. It is disheartening to witness the support given to those who choose to operate outside the necessary legal boundaries.

?

A few years ago, I issued a warning to the industry about an individual with a extensive criminal record, including convictions for impersonating a peace officer with intent to rob (3 counts), multiple DUI offenses, and DUI with leaving the scene of an accident with injuries (felony), among others. Despite my efforts to inform fellow security professionals, the backlash I faced was surprising, as this individual was popular on social media at the time. Fast forward to today, and some who defended this person have now become victims themselves, experiencing significant financial losses exceeding a million dollars due to theft and embezzlement by the same individual. The repercussions are still reverberating within the industry.

?

If an organization or individual is willing to operate without adhering to local laws, it raises questions about their ethics, morals and overall trustworthiness. There are significant personal risks involved. As security professionals, we are trained to anticipate various scenarios, so consider the potential consequences. Working for or with someone or an organization without the required license implies gross negligence on all fronts. Without insurance, your personal assets become vulnerable. Even if there's insurance but no local license, it violates insurance requirements, again putting your assets at risk. Beyond civil risks, criminal charges, such as carrying a firearm without proper licensing, may also come into play.

?

Frequently, organizations attempt workarounds when a job arises. This might involve the unlicensed organization asking the individual performing the work to have the necessary individual licensing for security services. Alternatively, the security position may be disguised as a personal assistant role. Both practices are not legal and often violate state laws.

?

While many engage in such practices, one organization worth noting is Ledlow Security Intelligence Group . As of December 1, 2023, Ledlow Security Group does not possess a Private Patrolman's license with the Nevada Private Investigators Board (PILB). Although Mr. Ledlow holds an individual work card for Nevada, it doesn't authorize him to hire others and offer services under the banner of Ledlow Security Group. A similar situation exists in the state of California and in many other states. In a social media post, Mr. Ledlow proudly states (exact quote):

“Ledlow Security Group incase you did not know we hold a Security License in Oregon.? We also hold a work comp policy which protects our clients, and we also hold General Liability Policy”

Possessing a license in one state does not grant the authority to conduct operations in any desired location.

I am aware that Mr. Ledlow is highly regarded and provides monetary sponsorships to numerous security conferences. I anticipate receiving negative comments regarding this article, but before reacting, consider these questions: Is the information I am highlighting incorrect? While it may be uncomfortable to acknowledge, is the content inaccurate?

?

Before accusations of jealousy regarding Mr. Ledlow's perceived success arise, I want to clarify that my intention is not personal, and it is certainly not driven by jealousy. My objective is simply to raise awareness and elevate the standards of the protection industry. Individuals like Mr. Ludlow pose a risk to everyone involved, including himself, those he hires or contracts with, the clients he is hired to protect, and the general public. Licensing requirements exist for valid reasons, and when individuals overlook these fundamental aspects, it raises concerns about what else they might be willing to disregard.

?

In my previous LinkedIn articles, I emphasized the critical importance of due diligence. I strongly advise that, before engaging with an individual or organization—either as an employer or an employee—you should request and verify their licensing, insurance, and business license information for the location in which the security service is to be performed. While the need for employment is understandable, it is crucial to consider the personal risks involved and how these could impact not only you but also your family.

If Mr. Ledlow or others believe there are inaccuracies in my statements, I am open to engaging in a discussion. I would even be willing to participate in Mr. Ledlow's podcast to address the concerns raised in this matter.

Consider the following solutions: If a client requires security services beyond your licensed area, collaborate with a reputable, licensed, and insured company through subcontracting. Alternatively, become a licensed and insured service provider in the states where you currently operate or plan to work. Unfortunately, some individuals may opt to avoid these solutions, citing reasons such as time constraints, expense concerns, profit sharing, perceived complexity, or other excuses.

?

Doing the right thing is not an insurmountable task; countless professionals in the industry uphold ethical and legal standards every day.

The opinions expressed in the comments on this post are reflective of my professional perspective, and I am representing both myself and my organization, Security Concepts Group . This stance aligns with my core values and steadfast commitment to integrity, ethics, and moral values.