CFP Board Compares its Duty of Care to the SEC’s Reg B-I

Posted on July 30th, 2020 at 3:40 PM
CFP Board Compares its Duty of Care to the SEC’s Reg B-I

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law LLC:

This is the second of several posts discussing the similarities and differences of the SEC’s recently-implemented Regulation Best Interest (“Reg. B-I”) and the CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct. Previously, we discussed the difference in the standard of conduct required by the CFP Board code and Reg B-I. In this post, we will look at the duty of care required by the CFP Board and Reg B-I. 

The duty of care required by the CFP Board Code and Standards is a “prudent professional” standard. The CFP Board describes this standard as higher than a “reasonable person” standard. Specifically, the CFP Board Code states that “a CFP professional must act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent professional would exercise[.]”

The duty of care required by the SEC’s Reg. B-I is to “exercise reasonable diligence, care, and skill[.]” Initially, Reg. B-I included “prudence” as part of its duty of care, but it was later removed. However, according to the SEC, “prudence” was removed because it was unnecessary, and its removal “does not lessen or otherwise change the requirements of the SEC’s expectations under the Care Obligation.”

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: eccleston law, james eccleston, cfp board, sec, reg bi

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

July 26, 2024
Kentucky Advisor Sues LPL Financial for Alleged Corporate Raid

A Kentucky advisor, Mark Lamkin, has filed a lawsuit against LPL Financial, claiming the independent broker-dealer orchestrated a corporate raid that resulted in the loss of his firm’s entire book of managed assets.

July 25, 2024
FINRA Plans Fee Increases Amid Rising Costs and Losses

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has announced plans to raise fees for its approximately 3,300 broker-dealer member firms. According to AdvisorHub, the self-regulator faces soaring costs, as detailed in its annual report published at the end of June.

July 24, 2024
Raymond James Settles with Oregon Over Excessive Commissions

Raymond James recently settled a case with Oregon's Division of Financial Regulation (“DFR”), agreeing to pay nearly $200,000 over allegations of charging excessive commissions to retail investors.