CFP Board Censures Improper CFP® Professional Conduct

Washington, DC, June 18, 2013 – Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) announced today public disciplinary actions against the following individuals’ right to use the CFP® certification marks, effective immediately or on the date noted in each case. Public disciplinary actions taken by CFP Board, in order of increasing severity, include letters of admonition, suspensions and permanent revocations.

This release contains information about disciplinary actions relating to 27 CFP® professionals. Of these actions, there were 7 revocations, 12 suspensions, 3 interim suspensions and 5 letters of admonition.

The basis for each decision can be found in a Disciplinary Action Report below and on CFP Board’s website. The public may check on an individual’s disciplinary history and certification status with CFP Board at www.CFP.net/verify.

CFP Board’s enforcement process is a critical consumer protection. CFP® professionals agree to abide by CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct (Standards), which includes the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Rules of Conduct and Financial Planning Practice Standards. The Standards set forth the ethical standards for financial planners who hold the CFP® certification, who agree to act fairly and diligently when providing clients with financial planning advice and services, putting the clients’ interests first.

CFP Board enforces its ethical standards by investigating incidents of alleged unethical behavior, and following the procedures established in CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. In cases where violations are found, CFP Board may impose discipline ranging from a private censure or public letter of admonition to the suspension or revocation of the right to use the CFP® marks. The Disciplinary Rules and Procedures set forth a fair process for investigating matters and imposing discipline where violations have been found.

The actions in this release result from final decisions of the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and the Ad Hoc Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Ad Hoc Commission).  The Commission meets three times a year to provide a fair, unbiased review of any matter in which a CFP® professional is alleged to have committed violations of the Standards.  The Ad Hoc Commission meets as needed to provide a fair, unbiased review of any matter involving a CFP® professional who is an incumbent member of the Board of Directors (Board) or the Commission, or a former member of the Board or Commission who served within the previous four years, and who is alleged to have violated the Standards. The roster of Commission and Ad Hoc Commission members can be found here:  http://www.CFP.net/about-cfp-board/volunteers/volunteer-opportunities/disciplinary-and-ethics-commission#adhoc

The Commission and the Ad Hoc Commission function in accordance with the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures and review all cases on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the details specific to an individual case. While CFP Board has attempted to capture the details relevant to each decision, the summary nature of these releases may omit certain details affecting the decision. Accordingly, the decisions and/or rationale described in the releases may not apply to other cases reviewed by the Commission or reflect the Commission’s future interpretation or application of the Standards.

LETTERS OF ADMONITION

GEORGIA

Lisa R. Boone, CFP® (Atlanta):  In March 2013, following a review by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission, CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Ms. Boone. This discipline followed Ms. Boone’s entry into a settlement agreement with CFP Board in which she consented to CFP Board’s findings that she knowingly allowed a client to impersonate the client’s daughter on a telephone call with an insurance company in which Ms. Boone and the client sought information regarding the policy.  The client’s daughter was the trustee of the trust that owned the policy.  Ms. Boone’s employer terminated her employment based on this conduct, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. suspended Ms. Boone for 20 business days.  CFP Board determined that Ms. Boone’s conduct violated Rules 4.3, 4.4, 5.1 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Boone with regard to the above-mentioned conduct. 

NEW YORK

Dennis O. Beadle, CFP® (New York):  In March 2013, following a review by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission, CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Beadle.  This discipline followed Mr. Beadle’s entry into a settlement agreement with CFP Board in which he consented to CFP Board’s findings that he sought to sell a life insurance policy with long term care benefits in a state where he was required to complete a long term care course and examination to sell any product involving long term care benefits.  Mr. Beadle received a copy of the answer key for the examination, which he used to complete the examination.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. suspended Mr. Beadle for one month and fined him $5,000 and a state insurance regulator fined Mr. Beadle $500.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Beadle’s conduct violated Rules 102, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Beadle with regard to the above-mentioned conduct. 

Brian Taggart, CFP® (Saint James): In March 2013, following a hearing by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Taggart. This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Taggart improperly credited a manager at a securities firm with 15 continuing education credits when the manager did not actually attend 15 hours of continuing education courses.  The Commission also determined that Mr. Taggart submitted inaccurate attendance sheets to a state regulator to facilitate the manager’s receipt of the continuing education credits.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. issued a 45-day suspension and a $5,000 fine to Mr. Taggart.  The Commission determined that Mr. Taggart’s conduct violated Rules 102, 201, 606(a), 606(b) and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Taggart with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

TEXAS

Alan Goldfarb, CFP® (Dallas):  In April 2013, following a review by CFP Board’s Ad Hoc Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Ad Hoc Commission), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Goldfarb. The Ad Hoc Commission determined that Mr. Goldfarb misrepresented his compensation, first as “fee-only” and later as “salary,” on an online financial planner database.  CFP Board’s Terminology Section of its Standards of Professional Conduct (Standards) states that compensation is “any non-trivial economic benefit” that a “[CFP® professional] or related-party receives or is entitled to receive for providing professional activities.”  Further, under the definition of “fee-only” in the Terminology Section, a CFP® professional may describe “his or her practice as ‘fee-only’ if, and only if, all of the [CFP® professional]’s compensation from all of his or her client work comes exclusively from the clients in the form of fixed, flat, hourly, percentage or performance-based fees.”  CFP Board’s definitions of “compensation” and “fee-only” prohibit a CFP® professional from referring to his or her practice as “fee-only” if any of the compensation received by the CFP® professional and any related-party, such as the CFP® professional’s employer, is comprised of compensation other than the types of fees identified in CFP Board’s definition of “fee-only.”  The Ad Hoc Commission determined that Mr. Goldfarb was an employee and part owner of a registered investment adviser (RIA), registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that Mr. Goldfarb was a registered representative and part owner of a broker-dealer affiliated with the RIA.  Based on public regulatory filings and information received from Mr. Goldfarb, the Ad Hoc Commission determined that the RIA and the broker-dealer received or were entitled to receive compensation such as commissions and 12b-1 fees.  Therefore, the Ad Hoc Commission determined that Mr. Goldfarb misrepresented his compensation model as “fee-only” because he and/or his employer received or were entitled to receive compensation that did not come from clients exclusively in the form of fixed, flat, hourly, percentage or performance-based fees.  In addition, the Ad Hoc Commission determined that when Mr. Goldfarb changed his compensation method from “fee-only” to “salary”, “salary” was not “an accurate and understandable description of the compensation arrangements being offered,” as is required by the Standards.  The Ad Hoc Commission determined that Mr. Goldfarb’s clients paid commissions and/or fees and not a salary for services rendered by Mr. Goldfarb and/or his employer.  The Ad Hoc Commission determined that Mr. Goldfarb’s conduct violated Rules 2.1, 2.2 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Ad Hoc Commission admonished Mr. Goldfarb with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

VIRGINIA

Robert Yeh, CFP® (Virginia Beach):  In March 2013, following a review by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), CFP Board issued a Letter of Admonition to Mr. Yeh. This discipline followed Mr. Yeh’s entry into a settlement agreement with CFP Board in which he consented to CFP Board’s findings that he executed a series of withdrawals from his client’s Individual Retirement Account based solely on oral instructions from the client’s husband and despite previous warnings from the client that her husband had issues with spending.  The withdrawals resulted in penalties and taxes incurred by the client.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Yeh’s conduct violated Rules 201, 202, 606(b), 607 and 701 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Yeh with regard to the above-mentioned conduct. 

INTERIM SUSPENSION

CONNECTICUT

Noah L. Myers (Lyme): In May 2013, CFP Board issued Mr. Myers an automatic interim suspension of his right to use the CFP® certification marks.  CFP Board issued an automatic interim suspension after learning that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) barred Mr. Myers from association with any broker, dealer, investment advisor, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization.  The SEC found that, from October 2008 to February 2011, Mr. Myers engaged in fraudulent trade allocation or "cherry-picking."  Mr. Myers set up an omnibus account at the custodian for his firm’s advisory accounts, where he would place a block trade and then allocate the shares to his personal and client accounts. The SEC found that Mr. Myers misappropriated profitable transactions to his personal and business accounts at the expense of his clients during the relevant period.  Statements Mr. Myers made in his Form ADV Part II regarding batched trades were misleading because they conveyed the impression that he would allocate the batched trades fairly.  The SEC found that, by knowingly or recklessly allocating profitable trades to his personal and business accounts at the expense of his advisory clients and failing to disclose the scheme, Respondent violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.  The SEC also found that, by making material misstatements and filing misleading Forms ADV, Respondent violated Section 207 of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.  Pursuant to Article 5.7 of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures, CFP Board issued an automatic interim suspension because it found that the SEC had revoked Mr. Myers’ financial professional license.  Under the interim suspension order, Mr. Myers’ right to use the CFP® marks is suspended pending CFP Board’s completed investigation and possible further disciplinary proceedings.  The interim suspension order became effective on May 7, 2013.

FLORIDA

William G. Whitcomb (Fort Myers): In March 2012, CFP Board issued Mr. Whitcomb an interim suspension of his right to use the CFP® certification marks.  CFP Board initiated interim suspension proceedings against Mr. Whitcomb after learning that he had been charged with felony Possession of Child Pornography with the Intent to Promote in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida.  Mr. Whitcomb failed to respond to CFP Board’s Order to Show Cause within 20 calendar days, as required by CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. As a result, the allegations set forth in the Order to Show Cause were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Interim Suspension Order. Under the Interim Suspension Order, Mr. Whitcomb’s right to use the CFP® certification marks is suspended pending CFP Board’s completed investigation.  The interim suspension order became effective on March 16, 2012.

NEW JERSEY

Dennis S. Lerner (Edgewater): In March 2013, CFP Board issued Mr. Lerner an automatic interim suspension of his right to use the CFP® certification marks.  CFP Board issued an automatic interim suspension after learning that Mr. Lerner had pleaded guilty to two felony charges: 1) Participating personally, substantially and willfully in a matter as an employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in which he and an organization with whom he was negotiating employment had a financial interest, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 208; and 2) willfully disclosing tax return information to another as an employee of the IRS, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7213.  Pursuant to Article 5.7 of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures, CFP Board issued an automatic interim suspension because it found that Mr. Lerner had pleaded guilty to a felony.  Under the interim suspension order, Mr. Lerner’s right to use the CFP® marks is suspended pending CFP Board’s completed investigation and possible further disciplinary proceedings.  The interim suspension order became effective on March 21, 2013. 

SUSPENSIONS

CALIFORNIA

Michael B. Mulvihill (San Jose): In March 2013, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Mulvihill’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day.  This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Mulvihill’s insurance license had been restricted in 2009 due to a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.  As a condition of his restricted license, Mr. Mulvihill was required to obey all laws and regulations of the state.  Mr. Mulvihill was subsequently convicted of a second misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, which resulted in the temporary revocation of his state insurance license due to his failure to report the conviction to the state insurance regulator.  The Commission determined that Mr. Mulvihill’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Mulvihill’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Mulvihill’s suspension is effective from May 3, 2013 to May 4, 2014.

Douglas K. Shannep (San Diego):  In March 2013, following a review by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Shannep’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for four years. This discipline followed Mr. Shannep’s entry into a settlement agreement with CFP Board in which he consented to CFP Board’s findings that he filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 1994 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in 2010.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Shannep’s conduct violated Rule 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Shannep’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for four years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Shannep’s suspension is effective from March 22, 2013 to March 22, 2017.

Jerod A. Wurm (Roseville): In May 2013, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Appeals Committee, CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Wurm’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day. CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) found that Mr. Wurm made an unsuitable recommendation to an elderly client that she take out a home equity loan, for which he received a referral fee, and invest the proceeds into a variable annuity, for which he received a commission.  Mr. Wurm made this recommendation in a financial plan he prepared for the client despite: 1) acknowledging that he had never recommended a client invest the proceeds of a home equity loan; and 2) the fact that the annuity did not satisfy the client’s goal of reducing her tax rate and exacerbated her negative cash flow position. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA, formerly known as the National Association of Securities Dealers or NASD) determined that Mr. Wurm’s conduct violated NASD Rules 2310 and 2110  The Commission determined that Mr. Wurm’s conduct violated Rules 201, 202, 606(a), 606(b), 607 and 703 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules). The Appeals Committee modified the Commission’s findings of fact and rule violations to reflect that FINRA did not find that Mr. Wurm’s receipt of a referral fee was a violation of NASD Rules 2310 and 2110.  The Appeals Committee determined that this error was harmless and affirmed the Commission’s imposition of a one year and one day suspension of Mr. Wurm’s right to use the CFP® certification marks, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Wurm’s suspension is effective from May 1, 2013 to May 2, 2014.

FLORIDA

Adam S. Deane (Naples): In March 2013, following a review by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Deane’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for 90 days. This discipline followed Mr. Deane’s entry into a settlement agreement with CFP Board in which he consented to CFP Board’s findings that he recommended and executed a variable annuity replacement contract for a client in a state in which Mr. Deane was not licensed to sell insurance products and included false information in the transaction paperwork.  Mr. Deane met with the client, who was a resident of New York, regarding the replacement in Florida.  When Mr. Deane attempted to execute the replacement with the client’s state of residence as New York, Mr. Deane’s firm rejected the transaction.  Mr. Deane then modified the transaction paperwork to list the client’s state of residence as Florida.  Mr. Deane’s firm rejected the replacement application because the variable annuity was not available to residents of New York.  As a result of this conduct, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. suspended Mr. Deane for three months and fined him $25,000.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Deane’s conduct violated Rules 4.4, 5.1 and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Deane’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for 90 days, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Deane’s suspension is effective from March 8, 2013 to June 6, 2013.

Riad Shanawany (Tamarac): In March 2013, following a review by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Shanawany’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for 45 days. This discipline followed Mr. Shanawany’s entry into a settlement agreement with CFP Board in which he consented to CFP Board’s findings that he participated in a limited liability company formed for the reconstruction and modernization of an airport in Haiti without providing adequate notice to his broker-dealer.  Mr. Shanawany’s broker-dealer suspended him for 90 days and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. suspended him for 45 days and fined him $7,500.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Shanawany’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Shanawany’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for 45 days, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Shanawany’s suspension was effective from March 8, 2013 to April 22, 2013.

Bruce E. Winter (Boca Raton): In March 2013, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Winter’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for four years.  This discipline followed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Winter recommended and sold unsuitable variable annuities and a variable universal life insurance product to a 73 year old financial planning client.  Mr. Winter failed to clarify the client’s investment objectives after the client selected every investment objective on a client data sheet.  In addition, Mr. Winter failed to complete a cash flow analysis to determine if the client would have sufficient liquidity after purchasing two variable annuities and a variable universal life insurance policy.  Despite failing to complete a cash flow analysis, Mr. Winter placed a substantial majority of the client’s investable assets into equity-based, illiquid instruments.  The Commission determined that Mr. Winter’s conduct violated Rules 201, 202, 606(b), 607, 701 and 703 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Financial Planning Practice Standards 200-1, 200-2, and 300-1, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(b) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Winter’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for four years, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Winter’s suspension is effective from May 3, 2013 to May 3, 2017.

KENTUCKY

Alfred Holland (Nancy): In March 2013, following a review by CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Holland’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for 30 days. This discipline followed Mr. Holland’s entry into a settlement agreement with CFP Board in which he consented to CFP Board’s findings that he executed 14 exchange traded fund transactions totaling approximately $55,000 without the knowledge or consent of the client and in the absence of written or oral authorization to exercise discretion in the client’s account.  Mr. Holland’s firm immediately reversed the trades and reimbursed the client for the losses.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. suspended Mr. Holland for 20 business days and fined him $10,000.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Holland’s conduct violated Rules 201, 401(b), 406 and 607 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(d) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Holland’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for 30 days, pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Holland’s suspension was effective from March 8, 2013 to April 7, 2013.

NEW YORK

Raymond Martin (Sarasota Springs): In May 2013, following a hearing before CFP Board’s Appeals Committee, CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Martin’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day.  CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“