CFP Board Enforcement Process: Default; Suspension, Revocation, or Bar

Posted on July 13th, 2020 at 3:52 PM
CFP Board Enforcement Process: Default; Suspension, Revocation, or Bar

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law LLC:

This is the fourth of several posts detailing the CFP Board enforcement process.  This post will focus on what happens in the event a respondent is found to be in default.    

Once a CFP professional receives a complaint from the CFP Board, the CFP professional (known as the “respondent”) must take action to avoid being in default.  The respondent will be in default if he or she fails to file an answer to a complaint filed by the CFP Board Counsel.  It is important to note that a CFP professional can also be found to be in default for failure to act at other times in the process, including failing to acknowledge receipt of a Notice of Investigation or failing to pay fees assessed by the CFP Board. 

If a respondent is found to be in default, the CFP Board counsel will determine the sanction based on the seriousness, scope, and harmfulness of the allegations.  The CFP Board counsel may suspend respondent’s CFP certification and license for one year and one day; temporarily bar respondent from seeking CFP certification for one year and one day; revoke respondent’s certification and license; or permanently bar the respondent from seeking CFP Certification. 

The Administrative Order announcing the sanction must state the grounds for default with reasonable particularity.  The Administrative Order is subject to appeal. A respondent may also request reinstatement after an Administrative Order of suspension. 

CFP professionals who receive an inquiry or a complaint from the CFP Board should contact the professionals at Eccleston Law for a free consultation.

The attorneys of Eccleston Law LLC represent investors and advisors nationwide in securities and employment matters. The securities lawyers at Eccleston Law also practice a variety of other areas of practice for financial investors and advisors including Securities FraudCompliance ProtectionBreach of Fiduciary DutyFINRA Matters, and much more. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 65 years in delivering the highest quality legal services. If you are in need of legal services, contact us to schedule a one-on-one consultation today.

 

Related Attorneys: James J. Eccleston

Tags: james eccleston, eccleston, cfp board, certified financial planner, cfp enforcement

Return to Archive

TESTIMONIALS

Previous
Next

Jim, Stephany and the whole team were a God send.  We felt like we were put into a situation where we had no advocate. Jim’s team came in with a strong, well laid out strategy on how to get our story heard. Where our outside compliance company had no ability to help, our Broker Dealer was impenitent, and the regulators were aggressive pursuing vague rules, Jim came like a barricade against an assault we did not understand. Though you pay member dues to be affiliated with FINRA and a B/D, you have no voice. The only thing that is truly heard in this un-level playing field is a bulldog’s bark like Jim’s. I would encourage anyone to call Jim and his team to find a real ally in the tough and complicated world of securities regulation. They are truly the best.

Greg P.

LATEST NEWS AND ARTICLES

February 4, 2025
Wells Fargo Faces $3.37 Million FINRA Award Over Alleged Elder Exploitation

A FINRA arbitration panel has ordered Wells Fargo Clearing Services and its advisor, Stephen L. Smith, to pay approximately $3.37 million in damages to the estate of Genell Mathis.

February 3, 2025
Bank of America Agrees to Consent Order Over Anti-Money-Laundering Deficiencies

Bank of America Corp. has entered into a consent order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to address deficiencies in its anti-money-laundering (AML) and sanctions compliance programs.

January 31, 2025
UBS Settles FINRA Claims Over Supervision of Short-Term Preferred Stock Trades

According to AdvisorHub, UBS Wealth Management USA’s broker-dealer has agreed to pay $3.5 million in sanctions over allegations of supervisory failures related to short-term trading of syndicate preferred stock.