Just Saying “No” to Firm-Provided and Conflicted Legal Counsel in Your Transition may avoid problems later

Posted on April 14th, 2021 at 3:55 PM
Just Saying “No” to Firm-Provided and Conflicted Legal Counsel in Your Transition may avoid problems later

Our recently filed court case of Armstrong and Kiefner vs. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, and Michael Taaffe alleges behavior that financial advisors should be aware of in considering whether or not they should have agreed to be represented by legal counsel selected/referred by their new firm in connection with their employment transition. 

Counsel for the advisor must diligently and competently plan the transition, understand the law and the relevant employment agreements, negotiate the new employment agreement with the new firm (or refer the matter to another lawyer to do so), prepare a court defense and represent the advisor to the best of the lawyer’s ability, independently, without conflicts of interests, through the conclusion of any litigation.

Regrettably, a nasty underbelly associated with firm-provided legal counsel is alleged in the Shumaker lawsuit:

  • Counsel May Not Be Independent, May Not Disclose Its Conflicts of Interest, and May Not Obtain the Requisite Informed Consent from the Advisor- Until It’s Too Late
  • Counsel May Not Study or Provide Needed Advice to the Applicable Employment Agreements, State Law, Regulations, Any New Employer Policies and Any Prior Litigation/Arbitration Between Old and New Firms
  • Counsel May Forget That They Owe Stringent Ethical Duties (such as the duty not to reveal client confidences) to Their Individual Advisor Clients, and Owe NO Duties to The Firm Paying Their Legal Bill
  • Counsel May Throw the Advisor Client “Under the Bus” to Maintain the Firm’s Sterling Relationship with the Firm, No Matter How Damaging to Their Client Advisor

Successful advisors and their teams just can’t take the chance that they will be poorly served; the stakes are too high.

Tags: eccleston, eccleston law, recent case

Return to Archive



I am so blessed to have you and your dynamic team defending me. Your ethics, forward thinking and strategies are amazing.  You guys are the best group of attorneys in the country that I could hire to handle this complicated case.

Cindy C.


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.