Personal Injury Law

Will the Protocols Stand?

By Rod Heggy

There is an old saw that compares lawsuits to two men armed with knives circling each other in a dark room, not knowing whether they can ever put the knives down. During the raiding wars (a/k/a recruitment wars) of the last twenty-five years, the major wirehouses, broker dealers, and investment banks tried to defend their market share by making it difficult or impossible for stock brokers (a/k/a registered representatives, financial advisors, financial consultants)(?FCs?).

One of the most aggressive and effective firms at defending its turf when stock brokers tried to change jobs and take their books of business with them was Merrill Lynch. Other firms were more vicious about it, and turned to forfeiture programs designed to put thousands if not millions of dollars of earned compensation at risk just for changing jobs.

Finally, the Courts began to wise up to the fact that, no matter what high sounding moral or legal issues might be used to justify the raiding wars and the TROs and emergency hearings they spawned, what was really at stake was the book of business, market share and business income. That led Merrill Lynch to develop the Protocol for Recruiting Brokers. About sixty broker dealers have signed up and Bank of America just joined in the last couple of weeks.

However, during the recruitment drives of 2008, we are seeing the same contracts containing the same clauses that were used to obtain TROs and put the FCs on the beach since time immemorial. Also, no house will agree to insert any language deferring to the Protocol for Recruiting Brokers.

The houses all say the same thing about their refusal to incorporate the Protocol for Recruiting Brokers. Because any house can resign from the Protocols at any time, no house wants to make its employees third party beneficiaries of an agreement others might not keep. The men in the dark room carrying knives are still circling.

In these turbulent times when recruitment and job flight are at all time highs for FCs, it will be interesting to see if the houses panic over market share and withdraw from the Protocols. It will be interesting to see if courts have the sanity to impose the Protocols as an industry standard with or without signatories. A few courts have done so. See, Merrill Lynch v Brennan (D. Ohio 2007) (hat tip to the Firth Law Firm in Roanoke); Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v Griffin, slip op. (District Court of Suffolk, No. 08-0022, 2008)(hat tip Social Law Library Research Portal at socialaw.com).

Courts should be reminded that historically courts have historically found these cases interesting for awhile and then later rued the day they let them flourish.

Petitioner’s [Smith Barney] protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Court does not foresee any cataclysmic repercussions for Smith Barney that cannot adequately be addressed by monetary damages which are easily calculable from the requisite documentation.

Smith Barney, Inc. v. Anthony Cappiello, Supreme Court, County of New York, No. 603445/98, July 20, 1998, Slip Op. at 3.

Full post as published by Terra Extraneus on December 05, 2008 (boomark / email).