Jim Eccleston: Non-Solicitation Agreements: What Can You Say Without Crossing the Line?

Posted on October 31st, 2013 at 9:06 AM

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law:

John Lindsey, a former Edward Jones broker, found himself in hot water after accusations that he violated his non-solicitation agreement.  In March 2012, Mr. Lindsey left Edward Jones to go independent, taking with him about half his clients.  In response, Edward Jones promptly filed a request for an injunction and temporary restraining order.  Edward Jones claimed Mr. Lindsey had violated his one-year non-solicitation agreement by misappropriating client information and wrongly soliciting clients.  Specifically, Edward Jones’ non-solicitation agreement prohibits an advisor from soliciting clients of the firm for one year after the advisor’s departure.

            In May 2012, the Ventura County Superior Court in Ventura, California granted the injunction, upholding Edward Jones’ non-solicitation agreement.  However, Judge Tari Cody’s also found that nothing in that agreement prohibited Mr. Lindsey from servicing Edward Jones clients who reached out to him directly.  Subsequent to the ruling, Edward Jones asked a FINRA arbitration panel to make the injunction permanent and requested $5 million in compensatory damages.  Both of those requests were denied. 

            The arbitrators’ decision reaffirmed previous guidance given by FINRA’s predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers, which had issued a notice stating “that obtaining temporary restraining orders to prevent customers from following a registered representative to a different firm may be similar to the unfair practice of delaying transfers” of clients to a new advisor.

            FINRA’s position has been that firms cannot do anything to stop clients from going to a broker of their choice.  The court’s ruling reflects a similar position, stating that “[n]othing herein [the non-solicitation agreement] shall prohibit [Mr. Lindsey] or anyone else from: (a) continuing to provide services to [Mr. Lindsey’s] clients who have already moved business away from Edward Jones; (b) providing services to persons who have indicated that they wish to transfer their accounts from Edward Jones to permit [Mr. Lindsey] to continue as their financial advisor.”

The attorneys of Eccleston Law represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.

Related Attorneys: James J. Eccleston

Tags:

Return to Archive

TESTIMONIALS

Previous
Next

We just wanted to say thanks for your work in helping us get back some of the money we lost. We are not by any means rich, but we have saved some money and we have done so through a tight-fisted approach to most everything we do. So losing a significant chunk of money hurt…especially at a time when everyone else was growing their accounts. We really appreciate the work you did.

Allan and Adele

LATEST NEWS AND ARTICLES

October 27, 2021
Former LPL Advisor Suspended For Completing 22 Trades Absent Client Consent

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has suspended and fined a former LPL advisor who allegedly completed 22 trades on behalf of a client without obtaining written consent. FINRA has issued a $5,000 fine and has suspended Michael Hartlett for 10 days.

October 26, 2021
Former Advisor Fails To Reverse Bar After Alleged $1 Million Theft From RBC

A former RBC Wealth Management advisor lost his bid to reverse an industry bar, according to an appellate decision issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

October 25, 2021
Firms Walk Thin Regulatory Line In Referring Self-Directed Clients To Advisors

While online trading platforms have surged in popularity during the pandemic, brokerage firms view self-directed investors as a source of new clients.