Updated Wednesday, October 22, 2014 as of 6:23 PM ET

Turnabout: CFP Board Wants Court to Force Camardas' Hand

The CFP Board is hoping turnabout is fair play.

Get access to this article and thousands more...

All On Wall Street articles are archived after 7 days. REGISTER NOW for unlimited access to all recently archived articles, as well as thousands of searchable stories. Registered Members also gain access to exclusive industry white paper downloads, web seminars, blog discussions, the iPad App, CE Exams, and conference discounts. Qualified members may also choose to receive our free monthly magazine and any of our daily or weekly e-newsletters covering the latest breaking news, opinions from industry leaders, developing trends and growth strategies.

Already Registered?

Comments (5)
And how, exactly, does all this benefit the public?

The CFP Board brought all of this on themselves by failing to establish a clear and unambiguous definition of "Fee Only" and applying that definition to all CFP certificants in an even handed manner. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand...when thew actual purpose is practical vs. political.

When a former board member resigns over this matter and is thereafter persecuted, what more evidence does one need to understand that the CFP Board has lost its way? If a board member can't understand the rules of an organization that he is responsible for managing, what possible chance does a certificant have in understanding those same rules?

And now the CFP Board is trying to use the court to bludgeon the Camaradas. So much for their ethical behaviour.

NOT proud of the CFP Board or their actions in this fiasco.


Kevin M. Lynch, CFP(R)

Note: I do not personally know any of the parties to this action nor do I claim "Fee Only" status.
Posted by Kevin L | Tuesday, August 05 2014 at 12:28PM ET
I completely disagree Kevin.

CFP Board needs to stick to their guns here.

Fee only means Fee ONLY.

The only thing I'm not "proud of," with regard to CFP boards stance on these issues is their (seemingly, so far) backing down in the Kahler issue.

THAT is one where (if Kahler is allowed to continue to use Fee-only when ALL of his business activities are NOT fee-only) we may see evidence of their losing their way ... Time will tell.

K. Lane Mullinax, JD, CFP, MBA, CRPS
Posted by Lane M | Tuesday, August 05 2014 at 2:24PM ET
It may be interesting to see how much of the CCFP Dues goes to legal related expenses and advertising.

It seems the majority of the dues may go to promoting the CFP brand and then defending it.

Is that the case with the CPA brand?
Posted by FRANCIS B | Wednesday, August 06 2014 at 6:05PM ET
I believe my Mullinax is right on point!

There comes a time in every profession where the profession has to take a stand on what is right and unfortunately the cost is high and most professional organizations do not have big legal war chests.

However, I applaud the Board for doing what is right. In the long run it will benefit us all. In the short term it is very expensive but as I often tell people, you can usually tell the right thing to do because it is never easy!

For CPAs each state has its own Board of Accountancy and while they do not have large legal budgets either, their main job is to protect the public which is the same issue here; protecting the public

My advise to the Board is to hang tight and don't give up - the truth will prevail.

James M Shepherd, CFP(r), CPA
Posted by James S | Wednesday, August 06 2014 at 8:01PM ET
Kevin,
The lawsuit with the CFP Board and the Camardas actually has almost nothing to do with the definition of Fee-Only itself. That's not under contention in Camarda (though it is in the long list of problem situations that have followed).

At issue with Camarda is how the "enforcement" process was executed with the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission from the CFP Board, and the Appeals process along with it. Not at all about the definition of fee-only itself.
- Michael
Posted by Michael K | Thursday, August 07 2014 at 8:32AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.

Already a subscriber? Log in here