We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (17,444)
  • Industry Conferences (3)
  • Industry Job Openings (3)
  • Moore on the Market (189)
  • Negative Media (139)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (648)
  • Wink's Articles (257)
  • Wink's Inside Story (230)
  • Wink's Press Releases (97)
  • Blog Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Attorney Disbarred After Trying to Sell Annuities to Elderly Client

    July 9, 2012 by Gregory Monday and John T. Brooks

    Florida Supreme Court broadly defines “business transactions”

    Jun. 25, 2012 Gregory Monday and John T. Brooks

    According to the Florida Supreme Court, an attorney’s activities fall under ethical disclosure rules whenever he participates in a business transaction with a client, even if he’s not a principal (for example, buyer or seller) in the transaction.  In The Florida Bar v. Doherty,1 the Florida Supreme Court disbarred an attorney for attempting to sell annuities to an elderly client without notifying the client in writing that the attorney would receive a commission in the transaction.  Although many of us would never broker the sale of annuities to our clients—especially after the Glenn Neasham affair!2 — The Doherty decision reminds us that there’s a broad range of activities that may require written disclosure and written consent under the ethical rules governing business transactions with clients. 

    What Happened?

    Brian Doherty was a Florida attorney who also provided financial planning and investment services to clients and was licensed to sell certain investment products, including annuities.  In July and August of 2006, Doherty applied to purchase annuities on behalf of his client, an elderly widow.  If the transactions had proceeded, Doherty would have received a 7 percent commission, which would have been applied against a debt that Doherty owed to the annuity provider.  Further, it appears that Doherty deliberately chose to apply for annuities whose commissions he wouldn’t forfeit if the client died during a “chargeback” period.  As it happened, the client died on Aug. 19, 2006, before she could purchase the annuities.

    The referee who reviewed the matter recommended that Doherty be found guilty of violating two of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.  The first was Rule 4.17(a)(2), under which an attorney may not represent a client if there’s a substantial risk that the representation will be materially limited by the attorney’s personal interests.  Doherty didn’t challenge the referee’s recommendation under that rule.  However, the referee also recommended that Doherty be found guilty of violating Rule 4-1.8(a), relating to business transactions with clients.  Doherty challenged the second recommendation, arguing that the rule was inapplicable in his case.

    Rule 4-1.8 states that an attorney shall not “enter into a business transaction with a client” unless the transaction is fair and reasonable to the client, the attorney discloses to the client in writing of the terms of the attorney’s interest in the transaction and the desirability of the client seeking separate counsel in the matter and the client gives informed, written consent.  The Florida Rule closely parallels rule 4-1.8(a) of The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

    In his defense, Doherty didn’t assert that he gave the written disclosure or received the written consent required under Florida Rule 4-1.8.  Rather, he argued that his role as a broker in the proposed annuity transaction didn’t constitute engaging in a business transaction with the client, because Doherty wasn’t a principal in the transaction—he wasn’t selling anything to her or buying anything from her.  The court, however, rejected Doherty’s narrow interpretation of the rule.

    Court Ruling 

    The court held that Rule 4-1.8 “encompasses a scope of dealing broader than simply those between a lawyer and his or her clients as the principals to the transaction.”  The court cited a number of examples in prior Florida cases, such as an attorney investing in a company that was in direct competition with his client’s company, an attorney taking over his client’s role as chairman and CEO and an attorney making a secured loan to a client.  The court also cited a case in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that providing financial planning services to a client constituted engaging in a business transaction with the client and, thus, required written disclosure under Ohio’s Code of Professional Conduct.

    The referee and Florida’s Supreme Court threw the book at Doherty because of some egregious aggravating factors.  Doherty wrote himself into the client’s estate plan as personal representative and trustee, and the estate planning instruments were written to grant the trustee authority to purchase annuities only from the annuity providers to whom Doherty owed money.  Further, Doherty had previously been suspended by the New Hampshire bar for two years. 

    Lesson Learned

    Despite these special circumstances, however, it’s important not to lose sight of the decision’s central point: An attorney who participates in any capacity, other than as legal counsel, in a business transaction involving a client should play it safe and follow the same disclosure and consent rules that would apply if the attorney and the client were principals in that transaction.  This includes those attorneys daring enough to provide financial planning services to their clients—especially if they will receive a commission or other advantage from a client’s decision to pursue a particular investment.

    Endnotes

    1. The Florida Bar v. Doherty,No. SC10-332 (March 29, 2012).
    2. Leslie Scism “Annuity Case Chills Insurance Agents,” The Wall Street Journal, (March 18, 2012).

    Originally Posted at WealthManagement on June 25, 2012 by Gregory Monday and John T. Brooks.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency