FINRA Enforcement in a Post-Reg BI World: Defending Broker-Dealers and Registered Representatives

By Otto K. Hilbert, II

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s enforcement program has evolved substantially in the years since the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Best Interest took effect. The conduct standards governing broker-dealer recommendations are different. The supervisory expectations are different. The examination priorities are different. And the enforcement posture that broker-dealers and registered representatives face when the matter reaches a formal proceeding has shifted in ways that defense counsel ignore at their clients’ peril.

I have represented broker-dealers and individual registered representatives in FINRA matters across more than two decades, including arbitrations before the FINRA Dispute Resolution forum and enforcement proceedings before Department of Enforcement panels and the National Adjudicatory Council. The patterns I have seen in recent years differ from those I saw under the suitability regime. The substantive standards have shifted toward an explicit best-interest construct. The documentary expectations have expanded. The cooperation framework has tightened. And the firms and individuals who walk into these proceedings without understanding those shifts are walking into a different fight than they think they are.

What Reg BI Actually Changed in the Enforcement Context

Regulation Best Interest is often discussed as if it were primarily a disclosure rule. The compliance industry built itself around Form CRS, the relationship summaries, and the disclosure obligations. That focus has produced an unfortunate side effect: many broker-dealers and registered representatives have come to think of Reg BI as a paperwork regime, and as long as the paperwork is in order, the substantive obligations are satisfied.

FINRA’s enforcement posture treats Reg BI very differently. The Care Obligation under Reg BI requires that a recommendation be in the retail customer’s best interest at the time it is made, based on the customer’s investment profile and the reasonably available alternatives. The Conflict of Interest Obligation requires that conflicts be identified, disclosed, and in certain cases mitigated or eliminated. The Compliance Obligation requires that the firm establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Reg BI. Each of these obligations is enforceable as a substantive matter, not merely as a disclosure matter, and FINRA examination staff has become increasingly precise about identifying conduct that violates the substantive obligations even where the disclosure paperwork is technically complete.

For defense counsel, this means the enforcement defense framework has changed. The traditional suitability defense — the customer was sophisticated, the recommendation was within the range of reasonable alternatives, the disclosures were made — is no longer sufficient on its own. The defense must address what the registered representative actually considered when making the recommendation, what reasonably available alternatives existed at the time, and why the recommendation that was made was, on the actual record, in the customer’s best interest as opposed to merely permissible.

The Reasonably Available Alternatives Problem

If there is one provision of Reg BI that has driven more enforcement attention than any other, it is the requirement that the registered representative consider reasonably available alternatives before making a recommendation. The Commission’s adopting release and FINRA’s subsequent guidance have made clear that this is not a theoretical exercise. The registered representative must actually consider alternatives, and the firm must establish supervisory systems that allow that consideration to be documented and verified.

In enforcement matters, the staff’s first request is typically for the documentation of the alternatives analysis. If the firm’s system does not capture that analysis — if the recommendation appears in the customer’s account record but the alternatives the representative considered do not — the firm and the representative are in a position they will struggle to defend. The staff’s theory will be that no meaningful alternatives analysis occurred. The defense’s response will require reconstruction after the fact, which is rarely persuasive.

The firms that handle this well have built supervisory systems that capture the alternatives analysis at the point of recommendation, not after the fact. They have implemented procedures requiring registered representatives to document the alternatives considered, the reasons each was rejected or accepted, and the basis for the recommendation made. These systems are not regulatory window dressing. They are the contemporaneous record that defense counsel will rely on when the enforcement staff comes calling, and they make the difference between a settlement at the low end of the sanctions range and a contested hearing the firm is likely to lose.

The 8210 Request and the Cooperation Calculus

Most enforcement matters begin with a Rule 8210 request — a request for information or testimony pursuant to FINRA’s authority to compel the cooperation of its members and associated persons. The response to that first 8210 request frames the entire investigation that follows.

Defense counsel new to FINRA practice sometimes treat the 8210 response as a discovery exercise. Provide the documents requested, produce the witnesses requested, and wait for the next request. This approach misses the cooperation dynamic that pervades FINRA enforcement. FINRA explicitly considers cooperation in determining sanctions, and the cooperation evaluation begins with the first 8210 response. A response that is timely, complete, and forthcoming establishes a baseline that benefits the firm and the individual throughout the proceeding. A response that is grudging, incomplete, or late establishes a different baseline that will work against the respondent at every subsequent stage.

That said, cooperation does not mean capitulation. The 8210 obligation is to provide truthful, complete responses to the questions asked, not to volunteer information that goes beyond the request or to characterize conduct in ways that prejudice the respondent’s defenses. Skilled defense counsel responds to 8210 requests in a manner that demonstrates cooperation while preserving the respondent’s strategic position. The respondent who answers narrowly but completely, who produces responsive documents promptly but without unnecessary commentary, and who appears for on-the-record testimony prepared and composed is the respondent whose cooperation cannot be questioned and whose defenses remain intact.

Settling, Litigating, and the Strategic Calculus of Hearing

Once the investigation matures into an enforcement recommendation, the respondent faces a decision: accept the staff’s proposed sanctions through a letter of acceptance, waiver, and consent (an AWC), or contest the matter at a Department of Enforcement hearing.

The AWC route offers significant procedural and reputational advantages. The matter is resolved quickly. The findings are negotiated. The respondent avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a contested hearing. For many matters, particularly those involving conceded technical violations or supervisory failures, the AWC is the right resolution.

The hearing route is appropriate when the staff’s theory of the case is meaningfully wrong, when the proposed sanctions are disproportionate to the conduct, or when the long-term consequences of the findings — particularly statutory disqualification under Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act — would be substantially more damaging than the immediate sanctions. In these cases, the respondent who settles for the sake of speed is making a decision that will affect his career or her firm for years to come, and the calculus deserves the careful attention that bet-the-business decisions require.

I have tried Department of Enforcement hearings on behalf of both firms and individual registered representatives. The hearing officers are sophisticated, the procedural rules favor the staff in ways that surprise lawyers unfamiliar with the forum, and the standards of review on appeal to the National Adjudicatory Council and the Commission constrain the respondent’s ability to overturn an adverse decision. None of this means hearings cannot be won. It means hearings should be entered with eyes open, with a defense team experienced in the forum, and with a strategic framework that accounts for the appeals process from the moment the hearing begins.

The Statutory Disqualification Problem

One of the underappreciated consequences of FINRA enforcement is statutory disqualification under Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act. Certain categories of findings — including willful violations of the federal securities laws — trigger automatic disqualification from association with a member firm. The disqualification is reversible only through a member continuance application, which is itself a substantial proceeding with no guaranteed outcome.

For individual registered representatives, statutory disqualification is often the most consequential element of an enforcement matter. A sanction that includes a willfulness finding can end a career even if the immediate suspension is relatively short. For firms, the disqualification of a key employee can disrupt operations, trigger reporting obligations, and create regulatory exposure that extends well beyond the underlying matter.

Defense counsel must therefore evaluate every proposed settlement and every hearing strategy with the disqualification consequences in mind. A settlement that resolves the immediate enforcement matter on favorable terms but includes a willfulness finding may be worse for the individual than a hearing that risks a longer suspension but avoids the disqualification trigger. These calculations require an experienced defense lawyer who understands not just the immediate sanctions but the long-tail consequences of the findings on which they rest.

The Firm-Representative Tension

In many enforcement matters, the interests of the firm and the interests of the individual registered representative diverge. The firm may have an interest in characterizing the conduct as the product of an isolated representative whose violations did not implicate firm supervision. The individual may have an interest in characterizing the conduct as consistent with firm policy and approved by firm supervisors.

This divergence cannot be navigated by a single defense team representing both interests. Joint representation in FINRA enforcement matters creates conflicts that experienced defense counsel will not undertake, regardless of the cost savings the firm may prefer. The firm should be represented by counsel focused on the firm’s interests. The individual should be represented by counsel focused on the individual’s interests. Common interest agreements can preserve privilege across the two representations where the interests align, but the representations themselves must be separate.

I have seen firms and individuals walk into enforcement matters with a single defense lawyer who attempts to thread the conflict, and I have seen those representations end badly for both clients. The firm should insist on separate counsel for individual registered representatives whose conduct is at issue, not as a courtesy to the individual but as a protection of the firm itself. The individual whose interests were not separately represented becomes the individual who challenges the enforcement findings on the basis of ineffective representation, and that challenge creates exposure for the firm that the original conflict was meant to avoid.

What This Means for Defense Strategy

The defense of FINRA enforcement matters in the current environment is not the defense of suitability claims under the prior regime. It requires understanding the substantive obligations of Reg BI as enforcement matters, not as disclosure matters. It requires building contemporaneous records that demonstrate the alternatives analysis the regulations require. It requires navigating the cooperation framework with sophistication, preserving defenses while demonstrating the engagement that affects sanctions outcomes. It requires evaluating settlements against the long-tail consequences of disqualification, not just the immediate sanctions. And it requires recognizing the conflicts that pervade matters involving both firms and individuals, with separate representation where the interests diverge.

The broker-dealers and registered representatives who navigate this environment successfully are not the ones who hire the cheapest defense counsel or the ones who settle every matter on the staff’s terms. They are the ones who treat enforcement defense as the sophisticated regulatory practice it has become, with the strategic discipline that the substantive standards now require. The cost of getting this wrong is not measured in sanctions. It is measured in careers, firm reputations, and the long-term ability to operate in a heavily regulated industry. That is a cost worth defending against carefully.

—

Otto K. Hilbert, II is a Trial Attorney with AEGIS Law. He brings over 36 years of first-chair trial and appellate experience to representing clients in complex commercial litigation, securities defense, and regulatory enforcement matters. He has tried cases in 23 states and is admitted before the United States Supreme Court and multiple United States Courts of Appeals.

This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers facing specific legal matters should consult qualified counsel.