Fighting for a balanced FINRA expungement process

Thanks Final document DAVID T HALL JR [email protected] David T Hall Jr

Sylvester

The current law is unfair as there is no check on the Regulatory Officers submitting the accusations. It is a one-sided process that is discriminatory and biased against Registered Representatives. It is difficult to receive Just treatment and any claims stay on the person's record for the rest of their life. Unfair!

My own career all but destroyed due to these type of policies. My education, licensing and skill set would have me at a level much much higher than the one I've been forced to settle to. When I test the market, the experience is exactly the same every time. Recruiters, headhunters, and Hiring Managers from every recognizable name on Wall Street reach out to me immediately upon receipt of my resume. Invariably, they are very interested in "having me interview as soon as possible." Prior to scheduling said interview I am asked for permission to pull my U4. I provide the permission knowing all too well whats coming next. Nothing. I never hear from them again and its all because of an issue unrelated to the securities business whatsoever. In fact, having never ran afoul of the law before, I was provided the opportunity to have the adjudication withheld pending payment of a fine and a few other contingencies. Upon completion of these tasks, it was removed from my criminal record. Its kind of crazy. The justice system has seen fit to wipe it from my record but FINRA seems determined to represent the disclosure on my U4 for future generations to see. Insult to injury is that I work in a compliance role where I protect investors on a daily basis. I do not, have not and likely never will, solicit the investing public to purchase securities and yet a matter unrelated to securities, reported in good faith as required, is now ruining my career because policies aimed at protecting investors prevent me from having the disclosure removed from my U4. Seriously considering a mid-stream career change.

The proposed changes are a bad idea. You are going to loose good financial advisors over false claims and allegations.

Recently affected. After 25+ years of no complaints. A disgruntled client wrote to FINRA and claimed a loss on a trade that was unwound & client suffered zero loss...yet my record now reflects the complaint.

I have a withdrawn complaint on my U4 that shows as a disclosure event when there was never a complaint. FINRA has made it nearly impossible to expunge a mark on my public record when I've done no wrong. My client's interest come first always, and this disclosure is severely frustrating to see.

FINRA needs to start becoming advisor-advocates, as opposed to throwing advisors under the bus. FINRA needs to remember that without advisors, there is no FINRA!

The FINRA expungement process is tough enough. A financial advisor currently needs to hire an attorney at great expense to successfully expunge even the most minor and baseless allegations.

against current FINRA proposal for "overload". should not be turned into a "product review " format.

Many of us have marks on our CRD, yet the "complainant" remains a client! Shouldn't that have some impact on whether an expungement is granted?

There must be a better way to treat advisors who go through rigorous professional standards and protect them from frivolous complaints.

Let keep the system fair and balanced, not just tilted in favor of customers, whether they are acting in good faith or not.

I support a balanced, cost and time effective expungement process. Please reconsider your postion. Thank you.

The coming changes to the expungement process benefit FINRA only. How is that fair to the financial professional, especially those with meritless claims?

Simply seems prudent for advisors to have a forum to have allegations filed against them to be heard and appealed.

Advisors need a voice, and deserve to be treated fairly. As a victim of a securities attorney who twisted the facts of the case, and tainted my record for years, it's imperative that representatives have a process that's balanced and efficient in getting meritless cases expunged.

Too many clients and other advisors abuse this process of utilizing complaints with malicious intent, the servicing advisor that has livelihood and reputation on the line should be allowed opportunity to defend themselves without extra costs and hurdles.

Corrected Comment: The parties to an arbitration should each be able to select one arbitrator; the two arbitrators should select the third arbitrator; all of the arbitrators should have at least 10 years experience dealing with the matters under contention; the arbitrators should stay within the four corners of the documents; their decisions should conform to the law and, where they do not, the parties should be free to pursue legal remedies in a court of law and the losing party should pay all of the prevailing party's legal costs and expenses in connection with the contest. This is fair and balanced and would discourage vexatious litigation, presently encouraged because arbitration has become increasingly expensive and the outcomes increasingly arbitrary, undermining the credibility of FINRA.

The 12 month limitation is particularly problemmatic as it is sometimes the case that obtaining clarity on a complaint can take longer. From FINRAs standpoint it is hard to understand why 12 months is either more convenient or easier to justify than, say, 3 years or 5 years.