CFP Board publicly censures 15 planners

More than a dozen certified financial planners received a public censure last month from the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards.

Ten permanently lost the right to use the CFP mark, five received a suspension, and one received a letter of admonition.

In addition, seven CFPs were privately censured, and 40 cases were dismissed.

All public censures are made after the Denver group’s professional review board determines that the CFPs violated its code of ethics and professional responsibility.

Of the 10 revocations, seven arose from the board’s looking into complaints brought before the National Association of Securities Dealers, the Securities and Exchange Commission or the civil or criminal court system.

Grievance

Another revocation stemmed from a grievance filed by a client; two others resulted from the unauthorized use of the CFP mark.

All five suspension cases arose from CFPs’ being disciplined by the NASD, the court system or other government or professional groups.

The letter of admonition was issued after the board investigated disciplinary action taken by the SEC.

Since 1987, the board has opened 1,716 disciplinary cases and publicly disciplined more than 400 CFPs.

Roughly 230 cases have involved CFP certification being revoked or denied; more than 90 CFPs have received a public letter of admonishment; nearly 100 have had their CFP mark suspended or certification delayed; and another 100 or so have received a private censure.

Most cases end up being dismissed on the grounds that they did not involve a breach of the board’s code of ethics and professional responsibility.

The CFP Board’s professional review board does not estimate how many cases will be brought before it in any given year, says its chairwoman, Jeanne Robinson. “They are what they are,” she says.

Last year, 227 new cases were opened, down from 264 in 1999 and 242 in 1998. The cases opened last year resulted in the public censure of 37 CFPs – just 0.1% of the roughly 37,200 individuals in the United States authorized to use the CFP mark.

dissatisfied

The problem that arises most often is client dissatisfaction.

Other cases involve following up on professional discipline from the NASD, the SEC or other government agencies. Legal actions, too, result in the board’s opening disciplinary cases.

Ms. Robinson says the process is fair. “I was more hesitant when I came into the process four or five years ago,” she says. “But a lot of CFPs there to respond [to complaints] understand that it’s a peer-review process, and they don’t come into it in an antagonistic way.”

The professional review board meets three times a year to review disciplinary cases.