Two Florida financial planners suing the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. in a dispute over how they describe their compensation are seeking to open court documents that they say show that the organization singled them out for discipline.
In a Sept. 2 motion, Jeffrey and Kimberly Camarda asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to unseal all the documents related to the suit so that they could be used as part of the couple's appeal of a D.C. District Court's dismissal of the case.
A hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. Wednesday. The Camardas are
attempting to overturn a summary judgment in favor of the CFP Board issued by federal Judge Richard Leon on July 6, 2015.
Mr. Leon ruled that the
court cannot tell the CFP Board how to enforce its compensation standards. The Camardas sued the CFP Board for breach of contract and unfair competition over a disciplinary case centered on their improper use of the term “fee-only” under CFP rules.
In a statement last year when they appealed the ruling, the Camardas criticized the CFP Board for “offering blanket amnesty and private deals” to other planners who they say violated CFP compensation rules.
In their Sept. 2 motion, the Camardas' attorney, Jeffrey S. York, argues that all the documents in the case should be unsealed because “they are part of the judicial record before the District Court on summary judgment … and are entitled to the presumption of public access.”
In an Aug. 30 letter to the court, the CFP Board agreed to open documents that relate to the disciplinary proceedings against the Camardas but not those that pertain to other possible violations of CFP Board rules.
The CFP Board said the Camardas' attempt to show that the CFP Board disciplined them while ignoring other misuses of the fee-only label was not relevant to the dismissal of the case.
“The district court rejected the selective enforcement claim as a matter of law and did not rely on any of these materials in reaching its decision,” Steven D. Gordon, an attorney with Holland & Knight, wrote on behalf of the CFP Board.
The Camardas responded that the district court didn't give the “proper weight” to the nonpublic documents when it made its summary judgment ruling.
“The sealed materials that [the CFP Board] references constitute that very counter-evidence, and [the Camardas] should be entitled to reference them to the [appeals] panel as part of oral argument,” Mr. York wrote in a Sept. 2 letter to the court.
The fee-only designation is coveted by financial advisers because it is widely believed to imply a high standard of care for clients. The Camardas' case is
one of several controversies over compensation descriptions that have embroiled the CFP Board since 2012.
