Strategies for Negotiating Customer-Complaint Settlements for RIAs and Broker-Dealers

Customer complaints are an expected part of operating within the financial-services industry. They may arise from market downturns, questions about suitability, confusion over fees, communication breakdowns, or mere dissatisfaction with performance. When a complaint escalates into a settlement discussion, registered investment advisers (RIAs) and broker-dealers (BDs) must handle the matter with precision, consistency, and an acute understanding of the regulatory landscape. Effective complaint resolution not only reduces litigation and arbitration risk, but also preserves client trust and minimizes reputational harm.

Conduct a Thorough Internal Investigation Early

The foundation of any successful settlement negotiation is a comprehensive and timely internal investigation. Firms should begin by gathering all relevant documents, including account applications, signed advisory agreements, disclosures, emails, CRM notes, performance reports, and any suitability or risk-tolerance questionnaires. At the same time, interviewing the adviser or representative is essential to understanding what occurred, why certain recommendations were made, and how decisions were communicated to the client. Supervisory personnel should also review the matter to determine whether internal policies were followed and whether the recommendations complied with FINRA Rule 2111 for broker-dealers or the fiduciary obligations imposed on RIAs under Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act and related SEC guidance.

In addition to reviewing the adviser’s conduct, firms should assess market conditions or product-specific factors that may have contributed to losses or customer dissatisfaction. This is particularly important for complex or illiquid investments. A thorough internal evaluation provides an evidence-based foundation from which to negotiate, ensuring the firm is not reacting to inaccurate client characterizations or making concessions without a full understanding of its own risk exposure.

Evaluate the Regulatory Implications

Before settlement discussions progress, firms must analyze the regulatory consequences that may result, not only from the underlying complaint but also from the settlement itself. For broker-dealers, FINRA Rule 4530(a) requires reporting of certain customer complaints involving allegations of sales-practice violations, while Rule 4530(d) requires quarterly statistical reporting of all written complaints. Settlements of $15,000 or more on behalf of a registered representative will typically require disclosure on Form U4 or Form U5, and even smaller settlements may trigger reporting depending on the allegations.

For RIAs, the regulatory analysis is equally important. Firms may be required to update Form ADV Part 1A (Item 11) with disciplinary or settlement-related information, and Part 2A may need amendments if the facts suggest a material change in conflicts, business practices, or financial condition. State-registered advisers must also examine state-specific disclosure rules, which can be broader and more detailed than federal requirements.

Many firms underestimate this step, assuming that confidential settlements avoid regulatory exposure. However, confidentiality provisions do not, and cannot, override mandatory disclosures. Regulators examine patterns of complaints closely; a settlement designed without considering these obligations can inadvertently trigger an enforcement referral or deficiency letter. A sophisticated settlement strategy must therefore incorporate regulatory analysis from the outset, and firms should advise representatives early about possible reporting consequences.

Identify the Firm’s Primary Settlement Objectives

No two settlements serve the same purpose, and firms should articulate their goals before engaging with the client. Some may aim to resolve the matter quickly to reduce legal expenses and avoid prolonged distraction. Others may prioritize minimizing public disclosures when permitted by regulatory rules, protecting the representative’s regulatory record, or preserving ongoing client relationships. In some cases, the objective may be to prevent escalation to arbitration or litigation, especially where the cost of defense could exceed the settlement value.

Clearly establishing these objectives helps focus negotiations and ensures the firm does not make reactive decisions. It also assists counsel and compliance personnel in coordinating both settlement strategy and regulatory planning.

Control the Narrative Through Proactive and Empathetic Communication

Clients often escalate disputes not because their losses are severe, but because they feel ignored or dismissed. Prompt acknowledgment of the complaint and assignment of a single point of contact can prevent unnecessary hostility. Maintaining clear, respectful communication, without admitting liability, signals professionalism and reduces the likelihood that the client will seek counsel or pursue arbitration prematurely. Even when the firm disputes the client’s characterization of events, empathy and transparency can dramatically improve the likelihood of early, cost-effective resolution.

Use Risk and Cost Analysis to Determine a Realistic Settlement Value

Determining an appropriate settlement figure requires a careful assessment of multiple factors, including whether the client actually experienced economic loss, the extent to which market conditions influenced performance, and the client’s sophistication and risk tolerance. Documentation plays an important role, as evidence of clear disclosures and suitability discussions can strengthen the firm’s position. Firms must also consider litigation and arbitration risk, including likely legal fees, potential business disruption, and the unpredictability of arbitration panels.

Importantly, even strong defenses may not justify protracted litigation if the cost of obtaining a favorable ruling exceeds the cost of settlement. Conversely, inflated customer demands may merit a firm stance to discourage opportunistic or meritless claims. A balanced cost-benefit analysis should guide negotiation strategy.

Consider Non-Monetary Settlement Options

Financial payments are not always necessary to resolve complaints. In many cases, non-monetary solutions, such as refunding or waiving advisory fees, offering portfolio reviews, providing enhanced oversight, or proposing structured adjustments to the client’s investment plan—can satisfy the client’s concerns without triggering reporting obligations or admissions of wrongdoing. These options can preserve the client relationship and demonstrate the firm’s commitment to service and accountability.

Draft Settlement Agreements Carefully and Ensure Regulatory Compatibility

The settlement agreement must be drafted with precision, as poorly crafted terms can create regulatory exposure. Agreements should contain clear and comprehensive release language, including waivers of unknown claims where permitted (such as those authorized under Cal. Civ. Code § 1542). They should also include clauses stating that the settlement is not an admission of liability, as well as confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions that comply with SEC and FINRA limitations on restricting communications with regulators. Notably, SEC Rule 21F-17 prohibits contractual provisions that impede individuals from contacting the SEC, and similar principles apply under FINRA’s cooperation rules.

Crucially, firms must confirm that settlement terms do not contradict mandatory regulatory reporting obligations. For example, confidentiality provisions cannot prevent required disclosures on Forms U4, U5, or ADV. Violations of these rules can lead to enforcement actions or examination findings that are far more damaging than the underlying complaint.

Coordinate Early With Carriers and Outside Counsel

If the claim may implicate E&O, professional liability, or fiduciary insurance, early engagement with the carrier is critical. Carriers may require consent before settlement, mandate the use of panel counsel, or enforce settlement authority thresholds. Prompt involvement ensures alignment and prevents coverage disputes that could undermine negotiations.

Document the Entire Process

Every step of the complaint and settlement process should be meticulously documented. This includes the initial complaint intake, internal investigation notes, communications with the client, carrier correspondence, internal risk assessments, and the full negotiation history. Comprehensive records protect the firm in future disputes, regulatory examinations, or audits, and help maintain continuity should personnel change during the resolution process.

Conclusion

For RIAs and broker-dealers, customer-complaint settlement negotiations require a careful balance of legal analysis, regulatory awareness, practical judgment, and interpersonal communication. By conducting thorough investigations, evaluating regulatory obligations, identifying settlement objectives, maintaining proactive communication, and drafting agreements that align with regulatory requirements, firms can resolve disputes efficiently while protecting their businesses and professionals. A disciplined, strategic approach not only minimizes exposure but also reinforces the firm’s commitment to compliance, transparency, and client trust.

Author: Dharmi Mehta, Sr. Attorney, Jacko Law Group, PC (“JLG”).  

JLG works extensively with investment advisers, broker-dealers, investment companies, private equity and hedge funds, banks and corporate clients on securities and corporate counsel matters. For more information, please visit https://www.jackolg.com/.

The information contained in this article may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. This email is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. Inadvertent disclosure of the contents of this article to unintended recipients is not intended to and does not constitute a waiver of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protections.

The Risk Management Tip is published solely based off the interests and relationship between the clients and friends of the Jacko Law Group P.C. (“JLG”) and should in no way be construed as legal advice. The opinions shared in the publication reflect those of the authors, and not necessarily the views of JLG. For more specific information or recent industry developments or particular situations, you should seek legal opinion or counsel.

You hereby are notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this message and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. These materials may be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in some jurisdictions.