I’m not a big fan of the CFP Board. I don’t think it’s that hard to get the CFP mark. And their “disciplinary” procedures really strike me as a kangaroo court.

Now Investment News has uncovered the CFP Board’s little secret, along with the secrets of other grantors of marks. The article points out that these grantors (they are NOT regulators) do not pay much attention to the people to whom they’ve granted the license to use the marks.

The common theme in the article seemed to be that these grantors use the Internet and rely on complaints to determine if they should take action against a licensee. My experience is that the grantor waits until after the real regulator has done its job (usually FINRA) and then swoops in to pick over the bones.

My experience with the CFP Board is that the so-called disciplinary rules are draconian and are slanted in favor of the Board. The timelines are short, the hearings are held in inconvenient locales and the licensee has to pay a fee just to be heard. And people complain about the lack of due process in arbitration! My advice to CFP licensees when the CFP Board comes knocking, why bother? Do people really pay attention to the mark? Or do they care that you, the financial professional, do a good job?

That’s the view from one lawyer in Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. I’m Marc Dobin.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as the securities industry’s regulator, is on the lookout for new and creative ways for brokers to get themselves and their firms in trouble. First it was email. And lawyers had a field day with whether or not email constituted correspondence or simply a “communication”. Systems were developed, along with rules, to supervise email.

The World Wide Web came along with email. Obviously this was a form of advertising, but how was it going to be regulated by FINRA and supervised by the firms?

The next hole in the dike was Instant Messaging. How could a firm supervise that? Thanks to “open architecture”, certain IM systems could be used and supervised.

Now we have social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn and, to a lesser extent, MySpace. This is, by no means, a complete list. And it does not address the foreign sites. What’s a firm to do?

One alternative is to ban the use of social media altogether. That would be a nice try, but I doubt it would be effective. Another is to regulate it and supervise it. this is the route that they will need to follow. FINRA is offering a webinar (how fitting) on social media.

There are some interesting questions here. If a broker is friendly with a client before the client relationship existed, what communications need to be supervised? How about if the client and broker become friends after the relationship is formed? I know that, in my representation of brokers, they frequently develop client relationships with people they like. This is what we called a “slippery slope” in law school. In other words, where does the line get drawn? We’ll see.

That’s the view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. My name is Marc Dobin.

I was quoted on the Compliance Watch blog by Suzanne Barlyn. Suzanne is a well-respected reporter on the financial scene. She knows who to talk to and asks the right questions.

This article was written about former Lehman Brothers brokers who are left defending claims regarding products sold while they were employed at Lehman. With the bankruptcy of Lehman, there is no traditional “deep pocket” so investors are looking to their broker for restitution. This is generally not an effective strategy as most brokers do not have the kind of money the client is looking for.

The larger firms generally do not have insurance against these claims. So the brokers are unprotected as well.

That’s the view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. I’m Marc Dobin.

A client sent me this link to a YouTube video. It appears that one of the hard-working traders in the background was using his expensive equipment for something other than trading. His employer was not amused.

That’s the bemused view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. My name is Marc Dobin.

Securities Fraud – Securities Fraud Lawsuits |LawyersandSettlements.com

I’m a securities and commercial litigator. I have a serious practice. I try not to take myself too seriously, but I know I have a job to do.

When I set up my new practice, I needed a website. I went to my old friends at Justia and set up a website with a form to contact me. It took about a week for the spammers to find me.

But it doesn’t make sense. I’m getting “inquiries” relating to selling me Viagra of dubious origin and gambling sites of dubious distinction. Do they really think this is effective advertising?

I handle securities cases and commercial disputes. My life is spent primarily in arbitration and, to a lesser extent, in court. Of what possible use would “Viagra” (if it really is Viagra) have to my litigation and arbitration practice? If I took it would it make me a better lawyer? I doubt it. Distracted, maybe.

Spammers – keep your spam to yourself. Lawyers with inquiry boxes are not interested in your wares.

That’s the view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Florida. I’m Marc Dobin.

This is one of the fun parts of my practice – I got to make a client happy. An old client called me. He had changed firms and the State of Florida had asked him for some additional information regarding an item in his past that was 22 years old. He had gotten registered before, and his U-4 and CRD report were unremarkable, but, for some reason, this item popped in his most recent application.

There are so many potholes that a registered representative needs to avoid. I have represented any number of brokers who had committed an offense on the level of a parking ticket and you would have thought that they kidnapped the Lindbergh baby. I had one client who was “on the beach” for nearly two years before he was allowed to relicense. I have written about the impact that items like this have on a broker’s U-4 and U-5 when I was writing The Law Planet blog.

Now, Investment News has published a “man bites dog” story about two brokers who are going after the State of Utah, its governor and some current and former regulators. The brokers are complaining about the heavyhanded treatment they received from their state’s regulators, including requesting copies of communications with their church. And this got me thinking…

When I was writing The Law Planet, I discussed, more than once, that I thought that Equity Index Annuities needed to be regulated as securities. I felt that they looked and smelled like securities and, eventually, the SEC agreed with me. At least one reader did not. She actually called my office to tell me I was wrong. But I wasn’t.

The Investment News article describes some infractions that were serious and some that were incidental. But what appears to have really ticked off one of the brokers is that the press release announcing resolution of the regulatory matter is allegedly wrong and defamatory. Oops.

When I review broker’s records, it’s kind of like sitting by the side of the road getting a speeding ticket. You were going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit while others are whizzing by you at 20 miles over. And you wonder to yourself, “Why did I get stopped?” It might be the red sports car you’re driving. One of the Utah plaintiffs was a big donor to the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002. Might that have put him on radar?

There’s no predicting what puts a broker on the regulator’s radar screen. But drawing public attention usually helps.

That’s the view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Florida – I’m Marc Dobin