Judge throws out Camarda case against CFP Board

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon granted a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit involving use of the fee-only compensation label

Jul 7, 2015 @ 3:10 pm

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

A federal court has thrown out a controversial lawsuit against the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. that centered on how the organization allows designation holders to define their compensation.

In a July 6 order, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon granted a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case against the CFP Board. The suit was filed in 2013 by Jeffrey and Kimberly Camarda, married financial planners who the CFP Board claimed improperly described their practice as fee-only in a profile on their website.

Mr. Leon's opinion will remain under seal for 14 days. At that time, the decision will be revealed, unless the parties can show cause for why portions must remain confidential.

The Camardas alleged that the CFP Board had unfairly disciplined them for violating its rules. The organization found that the Camardas, managing members of Camarda Financial Advisors, held themselves out as fee-only advisers when an arm of their firm, Camarda Consultants, sells insurance for commissions.

“CFP Board is very pleased that Judge Leon dismissed the case on the basis of deficient legal claims without the need for a trial,” Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, CFP Board managing director of public policy and communications, said in a statement. “This ruling affirms CFP Board's authority to set and enforce its Standards of Professional Conduct, which serve as critical consumer protections.”

A spokesman for the Camardas was not immediately available for comment.

The CFP Board has been struggling with controversies over compensation definitions ever since it first filed a disciplinary case against the Camardas in March 2011.

In November 2012, the organization removed Alan Goldfarb as its chairman for mischaracterizing his compensation on the Financial Planning Association website.

In September 2013, the CFP Board temporarily removed the fee-only description from its website and told the 8,000 CFPs using the label to re-evaluate whether they complied with the CFP rules before resetting the label on their profiles.

The CFP Board sets and enforces the educational, experience and ethical requirements for the CFP mark, which is held by nearly 72,000 planners in the United States.


Do you agree with the decision to throw out the case?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video


FPA's Shannon Pike: What's next for the financial advisory profession?

As we head toward 2019 and beyond, regulation and compensation will continue to dominate the headlines. Shannon Pike of the FPA explains.

Latest news & opinion

LPL rolls back recruiting policy aimed at driving more assets to its corporate RIA

LPL erases $50 million hurdle for new advisers to join so-called hybrid firms.

Don't be fooled by the numbers — the industry is in a dangerously vulnerable state

Last year's stock market gains helped advisers turn in solid growth in assets and revenue, but that growth could disappear in the next market downturn.

Divided we stand: How financial advisers view President Trump

InvestmentNews poll finds 49.2% approve of his performance, while 46.7% disapprove. How has that changed over the course of his presidency?

10 states with the most college student debt

Residents of these states have the most student debt when you consider their job opportunities.

Ex-Wells Fargo brokers sue for damages, claiming they lost business in wake of scandals

In a Finra arbitration complaint, two brokers allege that Wells Fargo's problems damaged their business.


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print