Jeffrey and Kimberly Camarda said Thursday that they are appealing the recent ruling by Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing their case against the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards in order to right “grave wrongs” the decision places on the industry.
Leon stated in his recently unsealed ruling that the CFP Board “followed its own rules throughout the disciplinary proceedings” against the Camardas when the Board claimed they violated its fee-only definition in reference to their firm, Camarda Wealth Advisory, in Fleming Island, Florida.
The Camardas said in a Thursday statement that “after very deep consideration,” they are appealing Leon’s decision to “dismiss our case against the CFP Board,” and that they have requested a public trial on the merits of their case.
“We believe there to be substantial legal merit for our appeal to be successful, and that we will ultimately prevail at the ensuing trial,” the two said. “This road has been long for us and we do not undertake its continuation lightly.”
What Your Peers Are Reading
The Camardas went on to say they believe there are “grave wrongs to be righted” in the judge’s decision, “with the welfare of the profession, and of the client public, hanging in the balance.”
But CFP Board stated in a comment shared with ThinkAdvisor that it “stands behind Judge Leon’s determination that CFP Board complied with the law when it imposed a sanction based upon a finding by other CFP professionals and members of the public that the Camardas violated CFP Board’s rules.”
CFP Board “believes that the judge’s decision will stand and that an appeals court will agree with Judge Leon that CFP Board ‘followed its own rules throughout the disciplinary proceedings,’ and that there is ‘no evidence that [CFP Board] was motivated by bad faith or ill will’ in disciplining the Camardas.”
The Camardas went on to state in their statement announcing the appeal that it has “been most improper for CFP Board to have commented on details of our case, when we were, and are, owed a duty of confidentiality as this case continues. We have found this astonishing, and in sharp juxtaposition to the organization’s principles.”