More than a month after resigning from JPMorgan in late 2023, Joshua Biering learned he was instead being let go for violations of the firm’s code of conduct.
Processing Content
Noting a “pattern” of such post-resignation firings, three industry arbitrators this week granted Biering’s request to have any mention of JPMorgan’s reasons for his termination expunged from official records. The U-5 document JPMorgan had to file when terminating him will now be changed to state he left voluntarily.
At the heart of the case is a mandatory “garden leave” policy that JPMorgan uses to prevent advisors from joining rival firms for 60 days after resigning. Biering, who is now at Raymond James, resigned from JPMorgan on Oct. 28, 2023, a day after learning he was being placed on administrative leave for reasons that weren’t disclosed to him.
In a decision made official on Monday, arbitrators on a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel wrote that they believe JPMorgan had learned Biering was thinking of leaving for an industry rival and began seeking reasons to fire him “so as to make it more difficult for [Biering] to go to work with a competitor.”
Concerns JPMorgan is engaged in ‘a pattern of conduct’
While still barred from switching firms by his 60-day garden-leave period, Biering was fired at the beginning of December. In an official U-5 document JPMorgan was required to file by FINRA rules, the firm said he was “terminated for inappropriate behavior. Not related to the sale of securities or any customer complaints.”
The arbitrators wrote that it “believes one of the primary reasons for the timing of the filing of the U-5 was to hinder [Biering’s] ability to transfer his book of business to a competitor.” The panel also noted a concern “that this may be a pattern of conduct.”
JPMorgan declined to comment for this article.
One of Biering’s lawyers, Joshua Iacuone of the Iacuone McAllister Potter law firm in Dallas, said the granting of his client’s expungement request is akin to “David beating Goliath.”
“Today, Josh’s name is clear,” Iacuone said. “Finally.”
Iacuone pointed to several other FINRA arbitration decisions supporting the idea that JPMorgan engages in a pattern of firing advisors to hinder their movement to competitors. In one, from February 2022, JPMorgan was ordered to pay $1.4 million in compensatory damages to its former broker Dustin Luckett after firing him five years before. JPMorgan’s official explanation for his firing was also changed to say: “Non-investment related. After a dispute about a clerical process, RR became disillusioned with the company’s atmosphere requiring separation of his at-will employment.”
In another case cited by Iacuone, JPMorgan was ordered to pay its former broker Evan Becht $363,200 in compensatory damages after letting him go in June 2023. The official reason for his firing was changed to: “Terminated by affiliate bank.”
Iacuone said the possibility that these cases form a pattern “raises broader questions, most notably: how such conduct harms financial advisors and, ultimately, their clients?”
Biering’s charges against JPMorgan and request for $10 million
JPMorgan has been a frequent filer of lawsuits against former private client advisors accused of improperly trying to bring clients over with them to rival firms. With Biering, though, any attempt at preventing him from transferring his business doesn’t appear to have been particularly successful. At a practice called Three Bear Capital of Raymond James, he now manages nearly $260 million in client assets and produces almost $2 million in annual revenue, according to numbers submitted in 2024 for Financial Planning’s annual 40 Brokers Under 40 rankings.
His initial claim in FINRA arbitration accused JPMorgan of defamation, business disparagement, unfair competition, weaponization of the U-5 document and breach of contract, among other violations. He later amended his filing to seek $10 million in compensation for lost clients, commissions and advisory fees, legal costs and damage done to his reputation, among other things.
The FINRA arbitration panel denied those claims after finding that its official explanation for its actions was not “defamatory,” merely inaccurate. The panel also noted that it found no evidence that JPMorgan had committed in writing to covering the legal costs of Biering’s expungement request.
“With respect to damages, although the Panel acknowledges the absence of a clean U-5 makes it very difficult to move to a Tier One competitor … the Panel notes [Biering] secured lucrative employment with a highly respected national brokerage firm less than two months after his termination,” the panel wrote.
