
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


In this critical episode, The Gershman Group CEO Roger Gershman speaks with prominent securities attorney Roggie Dunn to address the major legal concerns of First Republic advisors regarding the employment contract mandated by JPMorgan following the acquisition.
The discussion provides a sobering legal analysis of the "fill or kill" mandate, the enforceability of promissory notes (prom notes), the accelerated bonus payments, and the highly restrictive covenants. Dunn highlights JPMorgan's strategy of using urgency and broad language to gain maximum control over the acquired advisors, potentially devaluing their future earning power if they decide to leave later.
The Promissory Note Risk: The odds of defeating a firm's claim on a prom note in arbitration are long (firms win approximately 92% of the time). While extenuating circumstances like a firm shutdown can be argued, it remains an extremely difficult legal battle.
The Draconian "For Cause" Clause: The JPMorgan contract contains an "extremely broad" clause for termination "for cause," including language that grants the company "sole and absolute discretion." This allows the firm to fire an advisor for nearly any violation and withhold the acceleration of retention bonuses.
The Non-Solicitation Dilemma: JPMorgan's asset purchase includes the non-solicit, which is meant to prevent "human capital drain". The enforceability of this clause—especially for clients the advisor brought over—is ambiguous and highly dependent on state law.
The Urgency Strategy: Roggie Dunn speculates that the lack of transparency and the short 10-day deadline to sign are classic persuasion techniques intended to pressure advisors into signing before they can fully vet the contract or explore outside options.
Impact on Future Valuation: The new restrictive covenants and non-solicitation clauses significantly reduce an advisor's AUM portability and make them less marketable to competing firms, effectively devaluing their book of business if they become unhappy and want to exit.
Recommendation: Advisors must look at their prior contract, attempt to get a deadline extension to seek proper legal advice, and understand that signing the new contract could place "additional shackles" on their business portability.
Roggie Dunn (Prominent Securities Attorney) A highly experienced trial lawyer specializing in employment law, partnership, FINRA arbitration, and complex commercial litigation, with extensive experience advising financial advisors on non-compete and employment contract disputes.
By Roger GershmanIn this critical episode, The Gershman Group CEO Roger Gershman speaks with prominent securities attorney Roggie Dunn to address the major legal concerns of First Republic advisors regarding the employment contract mandated by JPMorgan following the acquisition.
The discussion provides a sobering legal analysis of the "fill or kill" mandate, the enforceability of promissory notes (prom notes), the accelerated bonus payments, and the highly restrictive covenants. Dunn highlights JPMorgan's strategy of using urgency and broad language to gain maximum control over the acquired advisors, potentially devaluing their future earning power if they decide to leave later.
The Promissory Note Risk: The odds of defeating a firm's claim on a prom note in arbitration are long (firms win approximately 92% of the time). While extenuating circumstances like a firm shutdown can be argued, it remains an extremely difficult legal battle.
The Draconian "For Cause" Clause: The JPMorgan contract contains an "extremely broad" clause for termination "for cause," including language that grants the company "sole and absolute discretion." This allows the firm to fire an advisor for nearly any violation and withhold the acceleration of retention bonuses.
The Non-Solicitation Dilemma: JPMorgan's asset purchase includes the non-solicit, which is meant to prevent "human capital drain". The enforceability of this clause—especially for clients the advisor brought over—is ambiguous and highly dependent on state law.
The Urgency Strategy: Roggie Dunn speculates that the lack of transparency and the short 10-day deadline to sign are classic persuasion techniques intended to pressure advisors into signing before they can fully vet the contract or explore outside options.
Impact on Future Valuation: The new restrictive covenants and non-solicitation clauses significantly reduce an advisor's AUM portability and make them less marketable to competing firms, effectively devaluing their book of business if they become unhappy and want to exit.
Recommendation: Advisors must look at their prior contract, attempt to get a deadline extension to seek proper legal advice, and understand that signing the new contract could place "additional shackles" on their business portability.
Roggie Dunn (Prominent Securities Attorney) A highly experienced trial lawyer specializing in employment law, partnership, FINRA arbitration, and complex commercial litigation, with extensive experience advising financial advisors on non-compete and employment contract disputes.