CFP Board Imposes Public Discipline

Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) announced today public disciplinary actions against the following individuals, effective immediately or on the date noted in each case. Public disciplinary actions taken by CFP Board, in order of increasing severity, include letters of admonition, suspensions and permanent revocations.

This release contains information about recent disciplinary actions relating to 20 current or former CFP® professionals. Of these actions, there were 4 public letters of admonition, 5 suspensions, and 11 administrative revocations. 

The basis for each decision can be found in a Disciplinary Action Report below and on CFP Board’s website. The public may check on an individual’s disciplinary history and certification status with CFP Board at www.CFP.net/verify.

CFP Board’s enforcement process is a critical consumer protection. CFP® professionals agree to abide by CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct (Standards), which includes the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Rules of Conduct and Financial Planning Practice Standards. 

CFP Board enforces its ethical standards by investigating incidents of alleged violations and, where there is probable cause to believe there are grounds for discipline, presenting a Complaint containing the alleged violations to the CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) pursuant to CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  If the Commission determines there are grounds for discipline, it may impose a sanction ranging from a private censure or public letter of admonition to the suspension or revocation of the right to use the CFP® marks.  CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules set forth the process for investigating matters and imposing discipline where violations have been found.

The Commission meets at least six times a year to provide a fair, unbiased review of any matter in which a CFP® professional is alleged to have committed violations of the Standards. 

The Commission functions in accordance with the Disciplinary Rules and reviews all matters on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the details specific to an individual case. While CFP Board has attempted to capture the details relevant to each decision, the summary nature of these releases may omit certain details affecting the decision. Accordingly, the decisions and/or rationale described in the releases may not apply to other cases reviewed by the Commission or reflect the Commission’s future interpretation or application of the Standards.

LETTER OF ADMONITION

GEORGIA

Kim L. McDougall, CFP® (Atlanta): In March 2019, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Ms. McDougall entered into a settlement agreement in which Ms. McDougall agreed that CFP Board would issue a Letter of Admonition.  In the settlement agreement, Ms. McDougall consented to CFP Board's findings that she failed to complete required continuing education (CE) credit hours for two reporting cycles, and that she could not produce evidence confirming she completed 43 CE programs (45 credit hours) that she self-reported.  CFP Board also found that Ms. McDougall promptly completed the missing hours after being notified of the deficiency.  CFP Board determined that Ms. McDougall’s conduct violated Rule 6.2 of CFP Board's Rules of Conduct and Article 3(G) of CFP Board's Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules), and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(A) and 3(G) of CFP Board's Disciplinary Rules.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. McDougall with regard to the above-described conduct. 

NEVADA

Julia Sohn, CFP® (Henderson): In April 2019, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Ms. Sohn entered into a settlement agreement in which Ms. Sohn agreed that CFP Board would issue a Letter of Admonition.  In the settlement agreement, Ms. Sohn consented to CFP Board’s findings that she entered into an Administrative Consent Order with the State of Nevada, which found that she conducted investment advisory business and collected $42,000 in advisory fees in Nevada while unlicensed from January 1, 2014 through April 20, 2014 and then from January 1, 2015 through July 6, 2015; that she failed to update her Form ADV properly; that she failed to provide her clients with her Form ADV; that she failed to disclose fees properly; and that she failed to maintain proper books and records.  In connection with the Nevada Consent Order, Ms. Sohn agreed to retain a compliance consultant, return the overcharged fees, and pay a civil penalty of $20,000.  CFP Board determined that Ms. Sohn’s conduct violated Rules 4.1 and 4.3 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(A) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Sohn with regard to the above-described conduct. 

NEW YORK

Josette L. Greechan, CFP® (Armonk): In March 2019, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Ms. Greechan entered into a settlement agreement in which Ms. Greechan agreed that CFP Board would issue a Letter of Admonition.  In the settlement agreement, Ms. Greechan consented to CFP Board’s findings that, as a result of her acceptance of a loan from a client for both her and her husband, she was terminated by her firm and denied registration as a securities agent by the State of Michigan.  Ms. Greechan also consented to findings that she failed to cooperate with CFP Board during its investigation and made false statements to CFP Board when she responded “No” to questions on her Ethics Disclosure Questionnaire regarding whether she was the subject of a governmental agency or self-regulatory organization inquiry or investigation and whether she had been terminated for cause, and when providing information regarding her termination.  CFP Board determined that Ms. Greechan’s conduct violated Rules 3.6, 4.3, 5.1, and 6.1 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(A) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Ms. Greechan with regard to the above-described conduct. 

SOUTH CAROLINA

Lawrence E. Murphy, CFP® (Hilton Head): In April 2019, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Murphy entered into a settlement agreement in which Mr. Murphy agreed that CFP Board would issue a Letter of Admonition.  In the settlement agreement, Mr. Murphy consented to CFP Board’s findings that he was terminated from his former firm for not following firm policy with respect to client files and entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) with respect to the same conduct.  FINRA suspended him for 20 business days and issued a $7,500 fine.  Mr. Murphy also entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order with the State of Delaware for failing to provide timely notice to Delaware of the FINRA suspension.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Murphy’s conduct violated Rules 3.1, 4.3, and 5.1 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(A) and 3(D) of the CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.  Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Murphy with regard to the above-described conduct. 

SUSPENSIONS

ARIZONA

Stewart A. Gooding (Tucson): In April 2019, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Gooding entered into a settlement agreement in which Mr. Gooding agreed that CFP Board would issue a six-month suspension.  In the settlement agreement, Mr. Gooding consented to CFP Board's findings that he failed to meet continuing education (CE) requirements for two reporting cycles, was unable to produce evidence showing that he completed 23 CE courses (38 credit hours) that he self-reported, and that the CE sponsors who provided the courses were unable to produce evidence confirming that he completed the CE courses he self-reported.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Gooding’s conduct violated Rule 6.2 of CFP Board's Rules of Conduct and Article 3(G) of CFP Board's Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules), and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(A) and 3(G) of CFP Board's Disciplinary Rules.  Mr.  Gooding’s suspension is effective from April 16, 2019 until October 16, 2019.   

CALIFORNIA

Jeffrey S. Gurman (Los Angeles): In July 2018, CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Gurman’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for 30 days.  Mr. Gurman’s CFP® certification expired on June 30, 2018.  This discipline followed an appeal of an August 2017 decision by the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission).  The Appeals Committee of CFP Board affirmed the Commission’s findings that, in connection with a 1031 exchange recommended and sold by Mr. Gurman in 2006 to a married couple, he failed to act in the interest of his clients and failed to make and/or implement only recommendations that were suitable.  Specifically, the Appeals Committee found that Mr. Gurman’s recommendations simply re-allocated assets from one type of real estate investment to another, and in doing so, the clients were left heavily over-concentrated in illiquid real estate investments.  The Appeals Committee stated that the Commission found no “malicious intent underlying Mr. Gurman’s recommendation,” but noted that he held a Series 24 supervisory principal’s license at the time of the transaction at issue, and that “he was in a financial planning relationship with the clients and owed his clients more due diligence on the specific investments along with a deeper discussion around the dangers of being too heavily concentrated in any single asset class.”  The Appeals Committee further noted that “the consideration and approval of the transactions in question by Mr. Gurman’s broker dealer [firm] further mitigates the severity of Mr. Gurman’s conduct.”  Additionally, the Appeals Committee noted that the Commission also considered in mitigation the fact that Mr. Gurman has no prior disciplinary history.  Mr. Gurman’s conduct violated Rules 202 and 703 of the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, thereby providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(A) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules). In accordance with Article 4.3 of the Disciplinary Rules, CFP Board issued a 30-day suspension of Mr. Gurman’s CFP® certification.  

NEW JERSEY

Diana A. Behre (Hackettstown):  In April 2018, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order in which Ms. Behre received a suspension of her right to use the CFP® certification marks for two years. The Commission issued its order after determining that Ms. Behre failed to act with the duty of care of a fiduciary while providing financial planning and/or material elements of financial planning and failed to act in the best interests of the client when she exerted undue influence on her mother, who was her client, in order to transfer assets from the client to herself, and when she charged the same amount of rent to her client’s estate after the client’s death as she had when the client was alive.  The Commission also found that this conduct reflected adversely on her integrity and fitness as a CFP® professional and the CFP® marks.  Further, the Commission found that Ms. Behre had filed for bankruptcy on two occasions.  The Commission determined that Ms. Behre’s conduct violated Rules 1.4, 4.1, and 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(A) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Ms. Behre’s suspension is effective from June 12, 2018 until June 12, 2020. 

NEW YORK

Dean Stephens (Seaford): In April 2019, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Stephens entered into a settlement agreement in which Mr. Stephens agreed that CFP Board would issue a six-month suspension.  In the settlement agreement, Mr. Stephens consented to CFP Board's findings that he failed to complete required continuing education (CE) credit hours for five reporting cycles, that he could not produce evidence confirming that he completed five CE programs (15 credit hours) that he self-reported, and that the CE sponsors who provided the courses were unable to produce evidence that he completed the CE courses he self-reported.  Mr. Stephens also consented to CFP Board’s finding that, although he initially indicated he did not have documentation for the self-reported courses, he later admitted that he did not take them.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Stephens’ conduct violated Rule 6.2 of CFP Board's Rules of Conduct and Article 3(G) of CFP Board's Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules), and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(A) and 3(G) of CFP Board's Disciplinary Rules.  Mr. Stephens’ suspension is effective from April 16, 2019 until October 16, 2019. 

VIRGINIA

Lloyd T. Layton (Dumfries): In February 2019, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Layton entered into a settlement agreement in which Mr. Layton agreed that CFP Board would issue a suspension of his right to use the CFP® certification marks for six months.  In the settlement agreement, Mr. Layton consented to CFP Board’s findings that he engaged in unsuitable short-term trading uniform investment trusts (UITs) with respect to 54 customer accounts.  The Commission determined that he entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) with regard to the same conduct.  FINRA suspended Mr. Layton for three months and issued a $5,000 fine.  CFP Board determined that Mr. Layton’s conduct violated Rules 4.3 and 4.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(A) and 3(D) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules.  Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Layton with regard to the above-described conduct.  Mr. Layton’s suspension is effective from February 19, 2019 until August 19, 2019.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVOCATION

CALIFORNIA

Cernan A. Bernardo (Chula Vista): In February 2019, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Bernardo’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed Mr. Bernardo’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged, among other things, that Mr. Bernardo filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2017 (after filing for an earlier Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2005); engaged in improper use of the CFP® certification marks after allowing his certification to expire; and failed to respond to CFP Board’s multiple requests for documents and information during the investigation of his second bankruptcy filing.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Bernardo’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline under Articles 3(A) and 3(F) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Mr. Bernardo declined to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.  Mr. Bernardo’s revocation was effective as of February 22, 2019.

Charla C. Kabana (Huntington Beach): In January 2019, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Ms. Kabana’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed Ms. Kabana’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged, among other things, that Ms. Kabana was terminated from her firm in 2016 for practices regarding variable annuity commissions and chargebacks and a related 2018 Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in which Ms. Kabana consented to a bar for her failure to cooperate with FINRA.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Ms. Kabana’s conduct violated Rules 4.3 and 5.1 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline under Articles 3(A) and 3(D) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Ms. Kabana declined to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.  Ms. Kabana’s revocation was effective as of January 25, 2019.

COLORADO

Neil Maxwell (Aurora): In January 2019, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Maxwell’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed Mr. Maxwell’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged, among other things, that Mr. Maxwell entered into a Consent Order with the Colorado Division of Securities on August 14, 2018, pursuant to which Colorado determined that Mr. Maxwell and his firm, Maxwell Wealth Planning, Inc., invested two senior clients’ funds in a blockchain investment fund managed by an unlicensed investment adviser without the clients’ prior knowledge and also requested a loan from another client after the client declined to invest in the blockchain investment fund.  CFP Board’s Complaint also alleged that, pursuant to the Consent Order, Mr. Maxwell consented to Colorado’s findings and a permanent bar from the securities industry; a permanent revocation of his Colorado investment adviser license; a directive to not make recommendations or otherwise render advice to clients regarding securities and not manage securities accounts or portfolios for clients; an agreement to provide restitution to two clients in the amount of $170,000; and the permanent revocation of the Colorado investment adviser license of Maxwell Wealth Planning, Inc.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Maxwell’s conduct violated Rules 2.1, 4.1, and 4.3 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline under Article 3(A) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Mr. Maxwell declined to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.  Mr. Maxwell’s revocation was effective as of January 15, 2019.

CONNECTICUT

Steven A. Cohen (Brookfield): In March 2019, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Cohen’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed Mr. Cohen’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged, among other things, that Mr. Cohen filed for personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1997 and 2018.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Cohen’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline under Article 3(A) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures (Disciplinary Rules).  Mr. Cohen declined to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 20 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 7.3 of the Disciplinary Rules.  In accordance with Article 7.4 of the Disciplinary Rules, the allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation.  Mr. Cohen’s revocation was effective as of March 11, 2019.

FLORIDA

Larry C. Grossman (Palm Harbor): In February 2019, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Mr. Grossman’s right to use the CFP® certification marks.  This discipline followed Mr. Grossman’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe.  CFP Board’s Complaint alleged, among other things, that Mr. Grossman was barred by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and was ordered to cease and desist from engaging in future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal laws, rules and regulations because he violated the federal securities laws by making misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to his investment advisory clients when he advised