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 Public Censures, Suspensions and Permanent Revocations. This release contains information about recent disciplinary actions relating to 24 current or former CFP® professionals. Of these actions, there are six Public Censures, 10 Suspensions, and eight Revocations.

The basis for each decision also may be found on CFP Board’s website at https://www.cfp.net/verify-a-cfp-professional. At that website, the public may check on any individual’s CFP Board disciplinary history and CFP® certification status. The website also provides links to other sources of information about CFP® professionals that may be more recent or that may contain information that has not led to CFP Board discipline and does not appear on CFP Board’s website. That information may include customer disputes, disciplinary actions taken by a regulator or employer, certain criminal matters, and certain financial matters (such as bankruptcy proceedings and unpaid judgments or liens). For those who are subject to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) or the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight, the website includes links to FINRA’s BrokerCheck and the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure databases.

CFP Board’s enforcement process is a critical consumer protection. As part of their certification, CFP® professionals agree to abide by CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct (Code and Standards), or its predecessor, the Standards of Professional Conduct (Standards), which included the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Rules of Conduct and Financial Planning Practice Standards. CFP Board’s Procedural Rules set forth the process for investigating matters and imposing discipline where violations have been found.

CFP Board enforces its ethical standards by investigating alleged violations and, where there is probable cause to believe there are grounds for sanction, presenting a Complaint containing the alleged violations to CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission). If the Commission determines there are grounds for sanction, then it may impose a sanction ranging from a Private Censure or Public Censure to the Suspension or Revocation of the right to use the CFP® marks.

The Commission meets at least six times a year to provide a fair, unbiased review of any matter in which CFP Board has alleged that a CFP® professional has violated the Code and Standards, or its predecessor Standards. The Commission functions in accordance with the Procedural Rules and reviews all matters on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the details specific to an individual case.

If a Respondent is in default due to a failure to (a) acknowledge receipt of a Notice of Investigation sent by CFP Board Counsel, (b) file an Answer to a Complaint, (c) provide proof of compliance after an Interim Suspension Order or written evidence after a Public Censure, Temporary Bar, or Permanent Bar, or a statement and written evidence after a Suspension, or (d) pay fees assessed by CFP Board, then Respondent will be in default and, based upon CFP Board Counsel’s determination of the seriousness, scope, and harmfulness of the allegations, CFP Board Counsel must deliver to Respondent an Administrative Order of Suspension, Administrative Order of Temporary Bar, Administrative Order of Revocation, or an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar.

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 Code and Standards, or the predecessor Standards.

PUBLIC CENSURE

FLORIDA

Aaron Cherry, CFP® (Tampa, Florida): In October 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Cherry entered into a consent order in which Mr. Cherry agreed that CFP Board would issue a Public Censure. In the consent order, Mr. Cherry consented to findings that he was professionally disciplined by the State of Florida for violating Section 517.12(4) of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Cherry also consented to a finding that he failed to timely disclose the Final Order to CFP Board within 30 days of entry. In addition, Mr. Cherry consented to a finding that he failed to meet his requirements when he falsely attested that he had not been the subject of any governmental agency or self-regulatory organization inquiry or investigation. Pursuant to the consent order, Mr. Cherry also consented to findings that his conduct violated Rules 4.3 and 6.2 of the Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission issued to Mr. Cherry a Public Censure.

MASSACHUSETTS

Alan P. Siegel, CFP® (North Easton, Massachusetts): In December 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Siegel entered into a consent order in which Mr. Siegel agreed that the Commission would issue a Public Censure. In the consent order, Mr. Siegel consented to findings that he was professionally disciplined by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for violating Chapter 110A, § 204(a)(2)(G) of the General Laws of Massachusetts and Sections 12.205(9)(c)(8) and 12.204(1)(b)(8) of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. In his settlement agreement with the Securities Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he admitted to providing financial planning and investment management services through an unregistered entity and to posting inaccurate content on his company website. He also consented that he received three customer complaints against him between 2011 and 2015. Pursuant to the consent order with the Commission, Mr. Siegel consented to findings that his conduct violated Rules 2.1 and 4.3 of the Rules of Conduct. Accordingly, the Commission issued to Mr. Siegel a Public Censure.

NEVADA

Carolyn L. Lumley, CFP® (Las Vegas, Nevada): In December 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Ms. Lumley entered into a consent order in which Ms. Lumley agreed that the Commission would issue a Public Censure. In the consent order, Ms. Lumley consented to a finding that she has filed two petitions for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, in 1997 (prior to CFP® certification) and 2010; both petitions were discharged. Ms. Lumley further consented to a finding that she failed to disclose the 2010 bankruptcy to CFP Board, falsely representing on a December 2011 CFP Board ethics declaration that she had never filed a petition for bankruptcy. Pursuant to the consent order, Ms. Lumley consented to findings that her conduct violated Rules 6.1 and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Accordingly, the Commission issued to Ms. Lumley a Public Censure.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Catrina Lynn Rastonis, CFP® (Hooksett, New Hampshire): In December 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order in which Ms. Rastonis received a Public Censure. The Commission issued its order after determining that Ms. Rastonis obtained reimbursement for a 2016 computer and printer purchase to which she was not entitled pursuant to her firm’s Computer Equipment Purchase Assistance Program, and that she was permitted to resign from her firm in September 2017 for this conduct. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) found in an August 2019 Cautionary Action Letter that Ms. Rastonis’ conduct with respect to the computer reimbursement violated FINRA Rule 2010, which states that “every member…shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” The Commission determined that Ms. Rastonis’ conduct violated Rules 4.3, 5.1, and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission issued to Ms. Rastonis a Public Censure.

NEW JERSEY

Elise Marie Cece CFP® (Wayne, New Jersey): In December 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Ms. Cece entered into a consent order in which Ms. Cece agreed that CFP Board would issue a Public Censure. In the consent order, Ms. Cece consented to findings that she converted her firm's funds by obtaining reimbursement for a 2016 computer purchase to which she was not entitled pursuant to the firm's Computer Equipment Purchase Assistance Program, and that her firm terminated her employment in January 2018 for this conduct. Ms. Cece also consented to a finding that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) found in an August 2019 Cautionary Action Letter that her conduct violated FINRA Rule 2010, which states that every member, in the conduct of her business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. Pursuant to the consent order, Ms. Cece also consented to findings that her conduct violated Rules 5.1 and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Accordingly, the Commission issued a Public Censure to Ms. Cece.

OHIO

Patrick M. Morrison, CFP® (Cincinnati, Ohio): In December 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Morrison entered into a Consent Order pursuant to which Mr. Morrison received a Public Censure. In the Consent Order, Mr. Morrison consented to findings that he failed to perform his professional services with dedication to the lawful objectives of his firm by obtaining and retaining reimbursement for a 2015 computer purchase to which he was not entitled pursuant to the firm’s Computer Equipment Purchase Assistance Program, resulting in his firm terminating his employment in May 2018. Mr. Morrison also consented to a finding by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) in an August 2019 Cautionary Action Letter that Mr. Morrison’s conduct with respect to the computer reimbursement violated FINRA Rule 2010, which states that “every member…shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” Pursuant to the Consent Order, Mr. Morrison consented to findings that his conduct violated Rules 5.1 and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct, providing grounds for discipline. Accordingly, the Commission issued to Mr. Morrison a Public Censure.

SUSPENSION

CALIFORNIA

Thomas J. Breslin (Del Mar, California): In October 2020, CFP Board issued an order suspending Dr. Breslin’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and one day. This discipline followed Dr. Breslin’s failure to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation through his lack of response to CFP Board’s investigative correspondent, including its Notice of Investigation (NOI) and Second NOI. CFP Board sought to investigate allegations that Dr. Breslin was terminated from his firm for “directing clients to unapproved investment, in violation of Firm policy.” CFP Board further sought to investigate a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA). In the AWC, Dr. Breslin accepted and consented to, without admitting or denying, that he (1) “participated in private securities transactions”; (2) “introduced five Firm customers and an additional individual…to the Company;” and (3) “inaccurately stated on annual compliance questionnaires that he submitted to the Firm…that he had not participated in any private securities transactions.” Finally, CFP Board also sought to investigate allegations that Dr. Breslin misled CFP Board by failing to disclose his termination or FINRA’s investigation on his Ethics Disclosure forms. Dr. Breslin’s conduct could have violated Rules 5.1, 6.5 and 6.2 of the Rules of Conduct. Dr. Breslin failed to acknowledge receipt of an NOI, as required by Article 1.1 of the Procedural Rules. Pursuant to Article 4.1.a. of the Procedural Rules, Dr. Breslin has been deemed in default. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, CFP Board issues this Administrative Order of Suspension wherein Dr. Breslin’s right to use the CFP® marks is suspended for one year and one day. Dr. Breslin’s suspension was effective as of November 23, 2020.

Michael Lucia (San Diego, California): In November 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order in which Mr. Lucia received a one-year-and-one-day suspension of his right to use the CFP® certification marks. The Commission issued its order after determining that Mr. Lucia failed to timely pay taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for six consecutive years resulting in the IRS filing a Federal Tax Lien each of those years that totaled over $828,000. The liens currently are all outstanding. In addition, Mr. Lucia failed to timely pay the State of California any tax liability he was assessed during the same six consecutive years, resulting in State Tax Liens filed against him each of those years that totaled over $232,000. All but one of these liens is currently outstanding. The Commission determined that Mr. Lucia’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct, which provides that a certificant shall not engage in conduct which reflects adversely on his integrity or fitness as a certificant, upon the CFP® marks, or upon the profession, and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Article 3(a) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission issued to Mr. Lucia a suspension for one year and one day. Mr. Lucia’s suspension is effective from December 30, 2020 until December 31, 2021.

Angelo Talebi (Sherman Oaks, California): In November 2020, CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Talebi’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for two years. This discipline followed an appeal of a December 2019 decision by the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission). The Code and Standards Enforcement Committee of CFP Board (formerly known as the Appeals Committee) affirmed the Commission’s findings that: (1) In August of 2006, Mr. Talebi received a caution from CFP Board regarding the “importance of complying with the laws, rules and regulations of all applicable governing agencies, including CFP Board, and of governing [him]self in a manner which reflects positively on the financial planning profession,” after receiving a 2005 National Association of Securities Dealers letter of caution addressing Mr. Talebi’s “[f]ailure to comply with NASD Conduct Rules 2210(b) and 3010(b)(1),” because he did not obtain his firm’s approval prior to the use of the website, did not provide notice or receive approval from his firm before appearing on a weekly radio show, and failed to maintain copies of his radio programs for three years, as required by his firm’s procedures; (2) the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) in which Mr. Talebi consented to the finding that he executed transactions in a customer’s online account using the client’s login credentials and password in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 3050(c) and FINRA Rule 2010 and agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and a 60-day suspension from association with any FINRA member; (3) Although FINRA notified Mr. Talebi that it accepted the AWC on December 11, 2015, Mr. Talebi did not notify CFP Board of his suspension until he submitted his ethics declaration on his renewal application more than ten months later, on October 28, 2016; (4) his former firms settled a civil suit brought by customers alleging that Mr. Talebi executed transactions in a customer’s online account using a client’s login credentials and password for $730,000; and (5) Mr. Talebi’s BrokerCheck report identifies 32 resolved customer disputes involving variable annuities limited partnerships, insurance products, and real estate investment trusts, 19 of which were resolved by settlement, with a total of more than $2.2 million in payments made. The Code and Standards Enforcement Committee affirmed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Talebi’s conduct violated Rules 4.3, 5.1, and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. CFP Board issued a two-year suspension of Mr. Talebi’s CFP® certification, which is effective from November 17, 2020 until November 17, 2022.

IDAHO

Brian Slattery (Boise, Idaho): In August 2020, CFP Board issued an order in which Mr. Slattery received a six-month suspension of his right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed an appeal of a November 2019 decision by the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission). The Code and Standards Enforcement Committee of CFP Board (formerly known as the Appeals Committee) affirmed the Commission’s findings that Mr. Slattery: (1) failed to meet all CFP Board requirements, including continuing education (CE) requirements, to retain the right to use the CFP® marks; and (2) falsely self-reported to CFP Board over two reporting periods that he had completed 60 CE credits, including Ethics CE, when he had not completed the courses. The Code and Standards Enforcement Committee found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the conclusion that Mr. Slattery intentionally submitted his self-reports of CE completion to CFP Board knowing they were false, and which could only have been done for the purpose of misleading CFP Board and concluded that Mr. Slattery had adequate notice that his intent was at issue in this disciplinary proceeding. The Code and Standards Enforcement Committee affirmed the Commission’s determination that Mr. Slattery’s conduct violated Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(a) and 3(g) of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. CFP Board issued a six-month suspension of Mr. Slattery’s CFP® certification, which is effective on August 31, 2020. On April 30, 2019, Mr. Slattery voluntarily relinquished his CFP® certification.

NEBRASKA

Stephen A. Callahan (Crawford, Nebraska): In November 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order suspending Mr. Callahan’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and a one day. This discipline followed Mr. Callahan’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Callahan was terminated from his firm in 2013 for “concerns regarding his disclosures to the firm and the degree of his involvement in Outside Business Activity, which exceeded the scope of Firm approval. Investigation also revealed client investment.” The Complaint further alleged the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) found in an August 2014 Cautionary Action Letter that Mr. Callahan’s conduct with respect to participating in private securities transactions “prior to providing written notice to, and receiving written approval from” his Firm, “violated NASD Conduct Rule 3040, which requires a member to provide written notice to, and receive written approval from, a firm prior to participating in any manner in a private securities transaction.” The Complaint also alleged Mr. Callahan misled CFP Board by failing to disclose his termination or FINRA’s investigation on his Ethics Disclosure forms. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Callahan’s conduct violated Rules 5.1, 6.5, and 6.2 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Callahan failed to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Pursuant to Article 4.1.a. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Callahan has been deemed in default. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Suspension wherein Mr. Callahan’s right to use the CFP® marks was suspended for one year and one day. Mr. Callahan’s suspension was effective as of December 10, 2020.

NEW JERSEY

Ryan Keller (Middletown, New Jersey): In November 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Keller entered into a consent order in which Mr. Keller agreed that CFP Board would issue a three-month suspension of his CFP® certification. In the consent order, Mr. Keller consented to findings that he entered in an Acceptance Waiver, and Consent (AWC) order with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) for selling 14 life insurance policies through a firm unaffiliated with his employer by falsely answering “no” to a question on an attestation for his employer that asked whether he had solicited any life insurance products outside the firm. Mr. Keller consented to a three-month suspension with any FINRA firm or member, and a $5,000.00 fine. In the AWC, Mr. Keller also consented to a finding that his actions, which resulted in his termination from the firm, violated FINRA Rule 3270, which states, “no registered person may be an employee…of another person, or be compensated…from any other person as a result of any business activity outside the scope of the relationship with his or her member firm, unless he or she has provided prior written notice to the member.” The AWC also stated a violation of FINRA Rule 2010, which states, “every member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.” Mr. Keller also failed to notify CFP Board about the AWC. Pursuant to the consent order, Mr. Keller also consented to findings that his conduct violated Rules 4.3 and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Accordingly, the Commission issued to Mr. Keller a three-month suspension of his CFP® certification. Mr. Keller’s suspension is effective from November 23, 2020 until February 23, 2021.

James Kinney (Lawrenceville, New Jersey): In November 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Kinney entered into a consent order in which Mr. Kinney agreed that CFP Board would suspend Mr. Kinney’s right to use the CFP® marks for six months. In the consent order, Mr. Kinney consented to the following findings. Mr. Kinney provided financial planning to a husband and wife client with a moderate risk profile and a desire to be prepared for retirement within a decade. The client and Mr. Kinney agreed to a strategy that invested in registered investment companies with hedging strategies. These strategies could be classified broadly as “alternative” investments. Mr. Kinney allocated in excess of 11% of his client’s portfolio in one of these alternative investments, with which he had little experience, and in excess of 30% of their portfolio in a collection of alternative investments. This large concentration of assets into alternative investments and in a single security left the portfolio exposed to unreasonable risk, exceeding the client’s risk tolerance. The client’s portfolios were otherwise diversified, Mr. Kinney did not directly profit based on his recommendations, and the clients did not suffer losses beyond those in the alternative investments. Pursuant to the consent order, Mr. Kinney also consented to findings that his conduct violated Rules 4.4 and 4.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Accordingly, the Commission suspended Mr. Kinney’s right to use the CFP® marks for six months. Mr. Kinney’s suspension is effective from November 23, 2020 until May 23, 2021.

NEW YORK

Matthew Champion (Clay, New York): In December 2020, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) and Mr. Champion entered into a consent order in which Mr. Champion agreed that CFP Board would issue a three-month suspension of his CFP® certification. In the consent order, Mr. Champion consented to findings that he wrote a check to individuals who were clients of another advisor to induce the individuals into believing that the other advisor would be able to repay any debts owed to the individuals. This inducement was false because Mr. Champion: (1) never intended for the individuals to cash the check he wrote to satisfy the debts owed to the individuals; and (2) had not performed any due diligence about the other advisor’s ability to repay the debts owed to the individual’s. Mr. Champion also consented to CFP Board’s finding that after the first check bounced and the individuals threatened to go to his firm, he wrote a second check to the individuals in an effort to discourage them from involving his firm. Additionally, Mr. Champion consented to CFP Board’s finding that he failed to meet the requirements for certification when he falsely attested in his CFP Board Ethics Declaration that he had not been the subject of any governmental agency or self-regulatory organization inquiry or investigation and that he had not been a defendant or respondent in a civil action. Pursuant to the consent order, Mr. Champion also consented to CFP Board’s findings that his conduct violated Rules 5.1, 6.1, and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Accordingly, the Commission issued to Mr. Champion a three-month suspension. Mr. Champion’s suspension is effective from December 15, 2020 until March 15, 2021.

OHIO

Edmund F. Bosse (Cleveland, Ohio): In October 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order suspending Mr. Bosse’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and a one day. This discipline followed Mr. Bosse’s failure to respond to CFP Board’s Notice of Investigation (“NOI”) and a second NOI within the required timeframe. CFP Board sought to investigate allegations that Mr. Bosse failed to timely pay his federal and state tax obligations, in multiple years, resulting in both the Internal Revenue Service and State of Ohio filing tax liens against him. Mr. Bosse’s conduct could have violated Rules 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Bosse failed to acknowledge receipt of an NOI, as required by Article 1.1 of the Procedural Rules. Pursuant to Article 4.1 of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Bosse was in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Suspension. Mr. Bosse’s suspension was effective as of November 30, 2020.

Christopher J. Selka (Norwalk, Ohio): In October 2020, CFP Board issued an order suspending Mr. Selka’s right to use the CFP® certification marks for one year and a one day. This discipline followed Mr. Selka’s failure to respond to CFP Board’s Notice of Investigation (“NOI”) and Second NOI within the required timeframe. CFP Board sought to investigate allegations that Mr. Selka was convicted of Driving Under the Influence in 2003 and was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated in 2017. Mr. Selka’s conduct could have violated Rule 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Selka failed to acknowledge receipt of an NOI, as required by Article 1.1 of the Procedural Rules. Pursuant to Article 4.1 of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Selka was in default, and CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Suspension. Mr. Selka’s suspension was effective as of November 30, 2020.

REVOCATION

CALIFORNIA

Alex M. Huang (Vallejo, California): In December 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Huang’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed Mr. Huang’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Huang failed to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation of his 2013 termination over concerns with information and documents regarding his education and his 2016 termination for failing to fulfill his suitability obligations, neither of which he had disclosed to CFP Board on his ethics declaration. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Huang’s conduct violated Standard E.5 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Huang declined to file an Answer to the Complaint to CFP Board within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, based on CFP Board determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of Mr. Huang’s conduct, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Huang’s administrative revocation was effective as of January 11, 2021.

COLORADO

Derek M. Wolff (Broomfield, Colorado): In November 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Wolff’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Wolff’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Wolff entered into two Stipulation and Consent Orders (Orders) with the state of Colorado finding that, from July 1, 2013 through July 1, 2015, Mr. Wolff and his firm Wolff Financial Advisors, LLC had multiple violations of the Colorado Code and Statutes, including, but not limited to, several books and records violations and misleading or inaccurate statements pertaining to advertising practices. CFP Board’s Complaint also alleged that Mr. Wolff’s conduct violated Rules 2.1, 4.3, and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Wolff declined to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Pursuant to Article 4.1.a. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Wolff has been deemed in default. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, based on CFP Board determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of Mr. Wolff’s conduct, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Wolff’s administrative revocation was effective as of December 17, 2020.

FLORIDA

Kristin Engebrethson (Tampa, Florida): In November 2020, CFP Board issued an order permanently revoking Ms. Engebrethson’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed Ms. Engebrethson’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Ms. Engebrethson failed to respond to CFP Board’s request for information regarding her 2017 termination, in violation of Standard E.5 of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct. Ms. Engebrethson declined to provide an Answer to the Complaint within 30 calendar days as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. In accordance with Article 4.1 of the Procedural Rules, Ms. Engebrethson is in default for failure to provide an Answer to the Complaint. Therefore, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Ms. Engebrethson’s revocation was effective as of December 11, 2020.

MINNESOTA

Brian R. Trygstad (Minneapolis, Minnesota): In November 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Trygstad’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This sanction followed communication from Mr. Trygstad informing CFP Board that he would not file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Trygstad failed to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation into a customer complaint and a related termination. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Trygstad’s conduct violated Rule 6.1 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Trygstad declined to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Pursuant to Article 4.1.a. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Trygstad has been deemed in default. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, based on CFP Board determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of Mr. Trygstad’s conduct, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Trygstad’s administrative revocation was effective as of December 16, 2020.

MISSOURI

Robert P. Stansberry (Columbia, Missouri): In November 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Stansberry’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This sanction followed communication from Mr. Stansberry’s counsel informing CFP Board that he would not file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Stansberry was terminated from his firm in 2018 for instructing customers to sign incomplete account documents, to be completed at a later time without post completion review or confirmation by the customers. The Complaint further alleged that Mr. Stansberry entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA), in which he consented to a six-month suspension from association with any FINRA member in any capacity and a $10,000 fine. In the AWC, Mr. Stansberry accepted and consented to findings including using a personal email account to conduct securities business, instructing customers to sign blank or incomplete documents and altering signed documents, in violation of FINRA Rules 4511 and 2010. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Stansberry’s conduct violated Rules 5.1, 4.3, and 4.4 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Stansberry declined to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Pursuant to Article 4.1.a. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Stansberry has been deemed in default. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, based on CFP Board determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of Mr. Stansberry’s conduct CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Stansberry’s administrative revocation was effective as of December 16, 2020.

NEW JERSEY

Sean Refsnider (Collingswood, New Jersey): In November 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Refsnider’s right to use the CFP® certification. This sanction followed Mr. Refsnider’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Refsnider failed to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation into his termination for allegedly taking money from clients. Since Mr. Refsnider’s default, CFP Board has learned that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) began investigating Mr. Refsnider based upon the termination from his firm. On October 15, 2020, after Mr. Refsnider refused to produce the information or documents required by FINRA Rule 8210, FINRA imposed a permanent bar on Mr. Refsnider from associating with any FINRA member in any capacity. Mr. Refsnider declined to file an Answer to the Complaint to CFP Board within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, based on CFP Board determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of Mr. Refsnider’s conduct, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Refsnider’s administrative revocation was effective as of December 17, 2020.

UTAH

Chad E. Loveland (Saint George, Utah): In December 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Loveland’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This discipline followed Mr. Loveland’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Loveland was the subject of a Utah Stipulation and Consent Order that contained conclusions of law in which Utah determined that Mr. Loveland and others violated several provisions of Utah law. These conclusions included findings that Mr. Loveland and others falsely suggested that they were affiliated with the Utah Retirement Services (URS) and Charles Schwab and made false and misleading representation to clients about the risks and costs of investments held at the URS. CFP Board’s complaint also alleged that Mr. Loveland failed to satisfy his Duty to Cooperate by engaging in a continuous course of failing to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Loveland’s conduct violated Rules 4.3 and 6.2 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct. Mr. Loveland declined to file an Answer to the Complaint to CFP Board within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, based on CFP Board determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of Mr. Loveland’s conduct, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Loveland’s administrative revocation was effective as of January 8, 2021.

WASHINGTON

David J. Roskoph (Gig Harbor, Washington): In November 2020, CFP Board issued an administrative order permanently revoking Mr. Roskoph’s right to use the CFP® certification marks. This sanction followed Mr. Roskoph’s failure to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within the required timeframe. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Roskoph entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order (Order) with the State of Washington finding that, from 2015 to 2017, Mr. Roskoph and his firm had multiple violations of the Washington Administrative Code and Revised Code of Washington, including several books and records violations, and a minimum capital requirement violation. CFP Board’s Complaint also alleged that Mr. Roskoph’s conduct violated Rules 4.3, and 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. Mr. Roskoph declined to file an Answer to CFP Board’s Complaint within 30 calendar days of the date of service, as required by Article 3.2 of the Procedural Rules. Pursuant to Article 4.1.a. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Roskoph has been deemed in default. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the Procedural Rules, based on CFP Board’s determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of Mr. Roskoph’s conduct, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation. Mr. Roskoph’s administrative revocation was effective as of December 17, 2020.