• April 19, 2022
• Dominion Portfolio Management Inc.

Lance Walston (CRD#: 4440958) is a previously registered Investment Advisor and registered Broker at Dominion Investor Services, Inc. in San Antonio, TX.

Broker’s Background

He entered the securities industry in 2001 and previously worked for Dominion Portfolio Management Inc.; LPL Financial LLC; Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc.; and Edward Jones.

Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in March 2021, a customer dispute filed against Lance Walston was settled for $150,000. The allegation stated, “Losses in accounts from September, 2018 to December, 2018.”

In addition, Lance Walston has been the subject of five customer complaints, including the following:

• March 2020 — “The Investment Advisor Representative strayed from the client’s objectives which resulted in losses in the accounts. Activity dates were September 2018 to October, 2019.” The customer dispute was settled for $188,000.
• November 2019 — “Deviated from the client’s stated objectives in the fall of 2018.” The customer dispute was settled for $40,009.42.
• November 2019 — “Deviated from the client’s stated objectives in the fall of 2018.” The customer dispute was settled for $82,190.82.
• November 2014 — “BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND VIOLATIONS OF THE CONDUCT RULES OF FINRA.” The customer dispute was settled for $11,500.
• February 2011 — “CLIENT ALLEGES THAT REPRESENTATIVE MISHANDLED HER IRA ACCOUNT FROM NOVEMBER 2009 THROUGH AUGUST 11, 2010. CLIENT ALLEGES THAT REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED INVESTMENTS AND CHURNED HER ACCOUNTS, AND DID NOT INVOLVE HER IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WHEN CHANGING HER INVESTMENTS. CLIENT ALLEGES THAT HER ACCOUNTS LOST APPROXIMATELY $223,286.41 BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1, 2009 AND AUGUST 11, 2010. REPRESENTATIVE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS AND MAINTAINS THAT ALL INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF CLIENT’S ADVISORY ACCOUNT WERE SUITABLE AND APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION, INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, RISK TOLERANCE AND INVESTMENT TIME HORIZON INFORMATION THAT CLIENT MADE KNOWN TO REPRESENTATIVE. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER MAINTAINS THAT HE PROVIDED COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION TO CUSTOMER IN CONNECTION WITH ALL INVESTMENTS AT ALL TIMES RELEVANT AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS, THAT ALL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND GUIDANCE WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE CUSTOMER WITH A WELL-POSITIONED INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OVER TIME, AND THAT CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGED, UNDERSTOOD, ACCEPTED AND RATIFIED ALL INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS AND ACTIVITY. LAST, REPRESENTATIVE DENIES CLIENT’S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE AMOUNT THAT HER INVESTMENT DECLINED IN VALUE DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” The customer dispute was denied.

For a copy of Lance Walston’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.

We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses

Financial advisors have a legal and regulatory obligation to recommend only suitable investments that are appropriate for their clients’ needs and objectives. Their employing brokerage firm has a legal and regulatory obligation to supervise the Financial Advisors’ sales practices and dealings with clients. To the extent any of these duties are breached, the customer may be entitled to a recovery of his or her investment losses.

Reasonable basis suitability requires that a recommended investment or investment strategy be suitable or appropriate for at least some investors. Reasonable basis suitability requires an advisor to conduct adequate due diligence so that he or she can determine the risks and rewards of the investment or investment strategy.

Quantitative suitability requires a brokerage firm or financial advisor with actual or de facto control over a customer’s account to have a reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended transactions – even if suitable when viewed in isolation – is not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light of the customer’s investment profile. No single test defines excessive activity, but factors such as the turnover rate, the cost-equity ratio, and the use of in-and-out trading in a customer’s account may provide a basis for a finding that a member or associated person has violated the quantitative suitability obligation.

Customer-specific suitability requires that a member or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is suitable for a particular customer based on that customer’s investment profile. Among the criteria that a financial advisor must evaluate to satisfy his or her customer-specific suitability obligations include the investor’s age, tax status, time horizon, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance; a client’s other investments, financial situation and needs, investment objectives, and any other information disclosed by the customer should also be considered.

The Wolper Law Firm, P.A. represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis.  Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, P.A., is a trial lawyer who has handled hundreds of securities cases during his career involving a wide range of products, strategies and securities. Prior to representing investors, he was a partner with a national law firm, where he represented some of the largest banks and brokerage firms in the world in securities matters. We can be reached at (800) 931-8452 or by email at mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.