Towry Law injunction hits Raymond James

Well I judge this to be the action of a very worried organisation. I wonder what the underlying figures look like? I guess Mr. Fisher is worried about his share options – and to hell with the legal costs.

Once again Mr Fisher & Co resort to the "bully boy and legal intimidation" tactics in a clear attmpt to prevent advisers from earning a living.

When will they ever learn that the clients who have moved money away from TL have done so because they were either unhappy with the TL offering or wantd to maintain a relationship with their existing advisers.

Now we see the true colours of the man who bought acompany for £1 without carrying the liabilities. It will be very interesting to see the outcome of this case if it actually goes to court.

I worked for Edward Jones and although I was offered a contract by TL I chose not to take it as they are in my opinion no different from a bancassurer ofering their own funds. I took one look at the ocntract and it was obvious to anyone that they were promoting inhouse funds- sorry portfolio platforms- and advisers are being actively encouraged to do so.

I have had several clients contact me because they do not wish to change their portfolios simply because their 'new' adviser suggests that now everything EJ recommended was poor.

What happens to clients that have holdings in individual equities, corporate bonds and gilts? I agree that clients are not property and I have made no attempt to prompt my old clients to come back and work with me but several have asked to because we have an ongoing relationship built on trust. Suerly that is the best thing for the client Mr Fisher?

Oh, I forgot you want to float next year and need as many assets under management as possible to bump up YOUR financial rewards!

(or should that be a wounded bully?) charging around attacking anyone and everyone. Unsurprisingly this is not the first time the words 'Andrew Fisher' and 'bull' have occurred in the same sentence. I say good luck to all ex EJ advisors who have escaped from Stalag Towry and its demented Kommandant.

This article highlights the key problem with the whole IFA business model.

Clients are 'owned' by the advisers not the firm, hence whenever advisers leave for whatever reason then the firm is vunerable to losing the clients.

Naturally having the advisers personal contact details on their business card is just making this problem much worse.

Unless a client has specifically complained to TL about having been contacted by a former EL/TL consultant, then it will be difficult for TL to prove that contact with the consultant was not initiated by the client.

Most clients hold contact details for their consultant, with whom they may have dealt for quite some time, and many may well have made contact merely to find out what's been going on. That is not solicitation.

All the contactee will have had to tell the client is that s/he was barred from solicitation but that if the client wishes to continue their relationship, then s/he is free to do so.

Firms do not own clients. They are the client's appointed advisers only for as long as the client chooses to maintain that arrangement. Clients are free to appoint an alternative firm of advisers any time they please.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Whilst I do not agree with how Towry Law has treated the ex Edward Jones advisers,if he bought the clients of Edward Jones and the ex Edward Jones had contracts of employments with restrictions on approaching former clients, Mr Fisher is perfectly entitled to enforce those contract terms.

However, as others have said, clients deal with advisers not companies. If clients chose to follow their ex EJ advisers, so be it. But if i were in Mr Fisher's position and ex employees were baltantly flouting the terms of their contracts and approching clients I would also look to take legal action.

If the ex EJ consultants were unhappy with the restrictive clauses in their contracts they should never have signed them in the first place.

I can't help but wonder if anyone has suggested that someone take a look at how TL have gained clients in the past.

Have they insisted in the past that no new adviser bring any clients with them, and abide by the terms of the contract they were doubtless under at previous employers not to contact their clients.

No. Of course not.

The case just highlights the biggest double standard in this industry.

Every company (nearly), (to appease the holier than thou brigade) want to take the clients from advisers former companies. It happens all the time and Towry Law are no different.

Get over it.

My understanding of the problems with restrictive clauses is there is european legislation in place which makes it extremely difficult to enforce as a large organisatin such as Towry Law should not be allowed to prevent individuals from earning a living.

In addition, all contracts issued by large organisations contain these clauses to intimidate individuals at a future date. If you don't sign it, you don't work for the large organisation which is also a significant barrier.

If Towry Law takes on a new adviser from another firm, it will happily welcome (and may even encourage the new adviser to bring) their existing clients with them with a view to switching their assets into one or more of the TL portfolios.

So I have to ask Mr Fisher why it is ok for clients to come to TL with a new adviser but it is not acceptable when an adviser leaves.

As always within these blogs, the words "Pot & Kettle" are synonymous with Towry Law.

Try asking the FSA for a view on client ownership. They will tell you that they will not interfere between an adviser and the company contract. This just demonstrates the farce of TCF, because if they cared about the clients' wishes they would tell firms they have no right to keep clients. Think about it from the clients' viewpoint, are they are the ones at the bottom of the heap, to be bought and sold like slaves.

For once, All these comments make sense. I agree with them all, if I had bought the business, for £1, or for £10,000,000, Id want to protect my investment.

The irony is, in the past, pre TL, when an adviser left EJ, they have written to the client informing them where their adviser has gone. I believe this is still the norm with EJ in the US.

The next Citywire headline should be about Towry only actioning on timely execution , transfers to their IIM, and seriously dragging their feet on transfers out.

As an ex TL adviser that left some while back I was also pursued by TL when a number of clients voted to leave TL and come with me to my new firm, primarliy down to the poor service that they received at the time from TL.

It was not the solicitation that was a problem as we all well know is impossible to prove but is was the "dealing" clause which after taking legal advice (both from a solictor and a barrister at significant cost) was proven to be a point which could have very easily ended up with a trip to the High Court.

Fortunately either by luck or the good advice of my legal team I avoided any full blown court case and settled before a case could be brought against me.

My advice is always to read the small print when you enter into any contract. This is a lesson I have learnt!

I have to say I agree (for once with all comments). But it wont be long before the "Clampett (i dont care cos it isn't me) brigade" start waffling the usual crap.

The last posting with regards to the speed at churning into IIM and the dragging of heals for tranfers was spot on. TL have recently sent me a letter threatening legal proceedings. They mention a client on the letter that I have allegedly contacted using confidential info, the client has been taking advice from me for 20 years and I was best man at his wedding!. they are clutching at straws to try and delay us transfering all of the AUM out before thay float or source an IPO. I have not contacted any of the people I brought to EJ. They have contacted me, either because they wanted to continue with my advice, or because they have heard nothing from TL.

The clients with high AUM have been contacted for a quick churn, but the clients with less than the TL magic £100k figure have been forgotten.

All of the press and coverage continue to make TL look like the bully boy/policy sellers that they are. I have pals who stayed at TL to "enjoy" a fixed salary that say the targets for churning are increasing rapidly!.

I also agree that as long as clients are instigating contact and we are honest with our approach there will be no case to answer. I have no cllent info with EJ written on it and the TL gestaspo can raid anytime they like!.

What TL are missing is that clients are getting very peed off that they are not contacting them (other than by letter) and that the transfers are taking so long. Therefore it will not be long before a stream of complaint letters will be winging their way to TL. I also think that the many hundreds of us that chose to leave and bore no ill will, should all pitch in and expose the way we were treated by TL. Plus there are many cases of unfair dismissal to address.

Well seems you don't like Miss Clampett very much - why cos the crap she spouts you dont like? which BTW most of it is spot on.

e.g. The client you have had mentioned in your letter..... your best man 20 years blah blah blah - didn't Ellie Mae post recently and say that all EJ business were built on fulffy family & friends brigade - which you have just admitted.

Are the other 5 clients you have: Mum, Dad, brother oh and 3 from knocking on doors in the local village?

And for the record the clients I have had leave EJ/TL is because it was best for them they still required an advised 'stockbroker' service which TL cannot provide - my transfers haven't been held up for these clients.

A - Because the transfer paperwork was completed correctly (which BTW a lot of them haven't been AS EX EJ employees are not educated enough to fill out paperwork properly - which is why they had overpaid BOAs to do it for them).

B. The teams at TL knew it was a legitimate transfer in the clients best Interests. These have been processed quicker than any transfers into IIM.

Maybe everyone on these blogs should get their facts straight from both sides of the fence before we start making assumptions that TL are deliberately holding clients assets.

Hmmm, this all sounds wonderful until you realise that most transfers are actually completed via St Louis and now Tempe (needed extra manpower to keep up with the exodus).

However it does seem very suspicious that most advisers had their own (or family) accounts which they have obviously transferred and these seem to be right at the back of the queue. I really think there will be an avalance of complaints on their way soon.

The stories of the churning going on are absolutely horrendous and I wouldn't believe it unless I had heard directly from clients what is being done. e.g How can you possibly justify switching a clients portfolio into their iim when that client is in his 80's just had brain surgery and spent 3 months in rehabilitation getting his memory back - if that isn't a vulnerable person I don't know what is - no family members present I hasten to add. The sooner the FSA decide to act on these crooks the better.

I have a brigade? How fun! What is a brigade? Must look that up. Never really been into the whole military thing much. Never could stand poncy twits who strut about with an imaginary stick under their arm and probably a real one up their butt whittering on about 'I used to be a Colonel you know!'

Seriously though, as a client, in the sense that I am not an advisor and simply a person who has a pension fund type thing with my bank and I am not in the UK anyway and as someone who has seen the fallout for people (ex-employees) swept up by false promises from companies hiring 'stock-brokers' when they have no skills or experience in the field, I can tell you that all of this back-biting is doing your industry no favours in the eyes of the public.

As I mentioned in another thread, if my bank discovered that an ex-advisor or clerk had accessed my personal info in order to try to recruit me to move my investments, I would be mad as hell if they did NOT go after them through the courts. I expect my bank to protect my personal information.

I have a brigade? How fun! What is a brigade? Must look that up. Never really been into the whole military thing much. Never could stand poncy twits who strut about with an imaginary stick under their arm and probably a real one up their butt whittering on about 'I used to be a Colonel you know!'

Seriously though, as a client, in the sense that I am not an advisor and simply a person who has a pension fund type thing with my bank and I am not in the UK anyway and as someone who has seen the fallout for people (ex-employees) swept up by false promises from companies hiring 'stock-brokers' when they have no skills or experience in the field, I can tell you that all of this back-biting is doing your industry no favours in the eyes of the public.

As I mentioned in another thread, if my bank discovered that an ex-advisor or clerk had accessed my personal info in order to try to recruit me to move my investments, I would be mad as hell if they did NOT go after them through the courts. I expect my bank to protect my personal information.

It amazes me how many people comment on this subject, especially as most just want to rip those who left EJ and went to TL AND those who went on their own for their own reasons.

As far as I am concerned anyone who contacts my clients from TL or otherwise is in their right to do so as long as they haven't broken any data protection laws as I would not like my clients details being used in an illegal way, my clients will do what is best for their money, irrespective of whether I have contacted them or not. People seem to think clients have only one option but believe me I have clients who have spoken to abvout 5 other advisers before deciding what they will do with their money, I don't think they feel 'owned' somehow!

As for the injunction... too bloody right this needed to happen, to keep in touch with clients, put adverts in the paper about where you are working now or take any info on a client are unethical ways of trying to keep your own bank balance healthy. Great if a client approaches you, but try and prove you didn't have any info on them when you transfer them over...

I think people need to stop tittle tattling on here and go and give your clients some good advice, those ex EJers who built their businesses up from scratch can do it again.... can't you??? That is the decision we made when we parted company from EJ/TL, don't get stung and get some new clients like I have!

Name and shame them!

With the FSA focus on TCF, the clients may have agency with Towry Law, BUT the right to transfer to any adviser they so wish.

I have asked this in a couple of places and would be interested to see any repliess.

I am curious to know why some bloggers appear hate Andrew Fisher on a personal basis. Have any of you ever met the man? I understand that in every business not everyone agrees with one another and that some of the comments are possibly based in jealousy, particularly the apoplectic, badly worded comments.

So he's successful, and so he's comfortably off. So are lots of people. He's worked for it. Nothing was handed on a plate.

I would be interested to hear a rational reason for the level of dislike displayed here.

Does Fisher really spend his weekends barbecuing babies and pulling the wings off butterflies?

To answer the above post there are a few things in life that are certain, Death, Taxes and any Towry Law story ending up in Andrew Fisher bashing!

You are correct, he is successful but at the same time on could argue that Stalin was successful, his rise to the top seems to have been via crushing those who stand in his way rather than being the best, this irks many.

It is understandable as a CEO that you are in the belief that your company is the best, each to their own I say, however he has rubbished professionals who don't subscribe to his methodology as incompetent and hence rubbed up people the wrong way.

Some key pointers for you in where I have observed the AF bashing:

(1) AF "If you take comission or trail, you are not servicing the customers correctly/legally"

Towry Law revealed as receiving (Pre EJ takeover so figures likely to be higher) £6 Million pa trail income.

AF "Of course it would be illegal for us to service these clients so we continue to take the trail".

Doesn't seem to make sense.

(2) The TL propostion from a client perspective involves receiving advice to invest in a TL ILM fund, regardless of the clients objective/circumstance, badged as IFA but sell only one product.

Myth over highly qualified advisers, many are not diploma level, the company is chartered as the board needs three chartered professionals on it (They have chartered, HR, chartered accountant and lawyer who gets them their accreditation - no advisers!).

Therefore "highly qualified advisers" selling one product would seem a waste of time, its like buying a packet of lockets from a neuro-surgeon.

(3) Commission and trail fees are a disgrace, TL up front arrangement fee and annual management fee are completely different (They are higher!!!) so the client is better off.

(4) Growth of the company by acquisition not organic - bought success lagely via asset stripping, ence circa 300,000 unserviced "Clients".

(5) Ej takeover debacle, advisers seem to have been treated appallingly, 75% left and the remaining 25% made up largely of inexperienced advisers who resort to cowboy tactics to get funds transferred into the ILM - lots of posts as to the wrongdoing but highlights include:

Letter to client - nothing changes, your adviser is still your adviser, then adviser has left you need to move your investments or be charged for advice, the best thing for you is funnily enough a TL product.

Ratcheted salaries, never use that term, heard by many using that term.

Telling clients that the best advisers left in the company and the chaffe gotten rid of.

etc etc etc.

There are more reasons that have been pointed out but in the end I think that there seems to be a frustration of the lack of honesty and integrity of TL led by Mr Fisher.

To David Gunnerson

I am absolutely shocked by your comments about Andrew Fisher - what a great advertisement to the profession of IFA's you are!

I know that Andrew has children and I hope they never read your pathetic comments about him commiting suicide, you idiot!!

No wonder the IFA industry is in the state it is when you have morons like you - your poor clients!! Thank god for the RDR to get rid of the likes of you.

And for the record, I work for Towry - Andrew is a true legend and well loved by the staff, despite what you may think!!

Citywire, I am astonished your publishing comments from bloggers asking if someone has thought about taking their own life - absolutely shocking in my view as you can control these blogs but yet you do nothing about it.

I am intrigued, where are these comments from D Gunnerson?

The comments have been removed, and assume Citywire realised that these had become far too personal.

The FSA should contact all ex- EJ clients and ask them if they have had funds moved or there have been attempts to move funds.

The subsequent investigation would indicate who has been churned.

I am amazed at the puerile, vindictive standard of debate.

No wonder IFAs command so little respect and are in one of the most vilified jobs.....just after bankers!!

A Customer.