Mr. Bob Lawson, AIF®, CFE®, RFC®, LUTCF, is a Securities & Insurance Expert Witness
retained for FINRA arbitration, mediation, and federal/civil court litigation. Mr. Lawson possesses over 30 years of experience within the securities and insurance industries. In 1988, Mr. Lawson founded Barrington Capital Management, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisory firm and Insurance Agency, and currently serves as the President and Chief Compliance Officer.
In addition, Mr. Lawson presides as a FINRA & NFA Dispute Resolution Arbitrator for disputes concerning public and private investors, financial services professionals, broker-dealers, and dually-registered investment advisers. Claims often arise regarding breach of fiduciary duties, employment disputes, conflicts of interest, churning, unsuitable investments, and failure to supervise, among others. Mr. Lawson also serves as a public mediator and is a Qualified Neutral under Minnesota Rule 114 of Standard Practice in Mediation and Arbitration.
His breadth of experience includes managing and supervising FINRA broker-dealer branch offices as a Registered Securities Principal, Options Principal, and Chief Compliance Officer. Mr. Lawson also has considerable experience with insurance products including variable annuities, fixed and indexed annuities, long term care, and life insurance. Mr. Lawson possesses numerous accolades and is certified as an Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF®), Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE®), Registered Financial Consultant (RFC®), and a Life Underwriter Training Council Fellow (LUTCF®).
Retaining Mr. Lawson as an Expert Witness and Litigation Consultant will clarify and address relevant issues pertaining to your case from an insider's point of view. Upon a thorough examination and analysis of the case material, Mr. Lawson’s conclusions and opinions are impartial, objective, and predicated upon years of industry expertise and experience. Expert testimony and reports are supported by thorough and detailed research through case-specific analysis.
Areas of Expertise
- FINRA & SEC Regulations
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Promissory Notes
- Securities Fraud Investigations
- Ponzi Schemes
- Options, Stocks & Bonds
- Due Diligence
- FINRA Arbitration
- Professional Malpractice
- Economic Damages & Losses
- Employment Discrimination & Termination
View Bob Lawson's Consulting Profile
- Litigation Consulting
- Unbiased Case Analysis
- Discovery Review & Recommendations
- Portfolio Risk Reports
- Securities Fraud Investigation
- Damage Calculations
- Expert Testimony
In the securities brokerage industry, "selling-away" refers to the prohibited practice of an Associated Person effecting or soliciting the sale of securities or investment products not held or approved with whom the broker is affiliated without prior written consent. FINRA regulators have seen a steady flow of selling-away cases over the years involving registered representatives who are being targeted by issuers, promoters and marketing agents to sell their nontraditional investment products to their retail customers. In many instances, promoters of these products are marketing them as non-securities products that do not have to be sold through a broker-dealer by a registered person. In a significant number of cases, associated persons have sold these investments to their customers away from the broker-dealer and without firm approval as required by FINRA Rule 3270. Selling-away often occurs in an independent branch or a satellite office, where Associated Persons are removed from the day-to-day oversight and supervision of their brokerage firm's compliance department.
I receive phone calls throughout the year from attorneys who have taken on their first FINRA case and they frequently are unaware how the FINRA Dispute Resolution process differs from other venues. I thought it would be helpful to provide a quick overview for new participants and a refresher for those more experienced securities attorneys on how the FINRA Arbitration and Mediation process works.
In FINRA-related cases many attorneys see discovery requests objected to by opposing counsel. Typically, opposing counsel objects to discovery requests citing that items requested are either "overly broad, vague, or ambiguous", or "impermissible per FINRA's Code of Arbitration Procedure". However, despite opposing counsel's reasoning, many objections to discovery requests are irrelevant and do not hold up in regard to FINRA's Code of Arbitration Procedure. Attorneys should not be intimidated or discouraged by these objections, but rather should understand that FINRA's guidelines concerning arbitration allow for most applicable and reasonably obtainable discovery information to be delivered.