The contractor using choke chains

Safety and honesty first, relationship management second, commerce third.

1. Tomorrow's sessions do not proceed as normal. Reassign them to yourself or a supervisor, or sit in. The dogs involved may already be at risk of fallout (suppressed warning signs, reduced willingness to walk on leash), and you must see the handling directly before you can judge the report. Tell the clients only what they need: a schedule change and that you are reviewing handling standards.
2. Gather facts before forming a conclusion about Alex. Ask both complainants for specifics, dates, and what the dog did. Ask Alex for their account without an audience and without a verdict already delivered. "Two clients have described X" is a fact; "you're abusive" is a conclusion.
3. Suspend independent handling of aversive procedures immediately. This can be done without a full investigation: no choke, prong, or shock, no leash pops, no citations of "only thing that works." Put it in writing.
4. Fix the website now. You cannot enforce a standard you contradict in your own advertising. "Certified trainers" when a contractor is not certified, and "guaranteed results" for behavior work, are both misrepresentations - remove or qualify them within the day, then correct the record with any client who signed up under that language.
5. Document everything, dated, including your own prior inaction on the website.

Why this order: the dogs and clients are exposed right now; the contract conversation can wait 48 hours, the next session cannot.

Frame it as a standards conversation with a written, behavioral expectation.

• State the policy plainly: only least-intrusive, minimally aversive methods; equipment restrictions; no shock, choke, or prong; no recommendations of those tools to clients; any use of aversive stimuli requires your prior written sign-off, and in practice you do not give it.
• Give Alex the concrete reports and a chance to respond. Listen for whether the issue is skill (they were never taught another way for pulling) or judgment (they believe the tool is necessary). Those need different remedies.
• Skill problem → a remediation plan: observation of your sessions, a leash-handling clinic, co-teaching for 4–6 sessions, review of their training plans, a 30-day check-in. Documented.
• Judgment problem or refusal → end the arrangement. You cannot book a contractor to clients while knowing the contractor uses methods your own code of ethics bars; continuing to profit from it makes you complicit, and "they're busy and clients like them" is not a defense.
• Ethics obligation: as a credential holder you are bound to humane practice and honest advertising, and most certifying bodies also expect you to address violations you observe, at minimum internally and, depending on the code, by reporting serious cruelty. Read your actual code and follow its process rather than improvising.
• Affected clients: a brief, non-defensive call - what you observed or were told, what you are changing, what they should watch for in their dog, and a free reassessment.

It is a claim about outcomes you do not control.

Behavior is a function of the dog's learning history, the environment, the household's consistency, medical status, and the client's schedule. A trainer controls the plan and the coaching, not those variables. A guarantee therefore does two harmful things: it misleads buyers, and it creates pressure to escalate to aversive methods when the promised result does not arrive, because the trainer, not the dog, is now on the hook. That pressure is how "guaranteed" language quietly becomes a driver of punitive handling.

Same problem with "certified trainers." If Alex is not certified, a blanket plural claim is false. An ethical site names credentials accurately and distinguishes staff roles.

Replace with claims you can substantiate:

• What you will do: an assessment, a written plan, specified session counts, data collection, and a defined review point.
• What clients can expect if they follow the plan and the dog does not progress: a re-evaluation, a referral, or a session credit - a remedy tied to your process, not to the dog's biology.
• Named credentials for each staff member, plus method statements ("least intrusive, minimally aversive") and an equipment policy.

Then tell past clients. Anyone who bought on the guarantee should be contacted, offered the qualified terms, and allowed to exit. Fixing the website while leaving the old promise in force for earlier buyers is a half-measure, and if a complaint is ever filed, it will be the half that gets quoted.