Former Financial Adviser James Warring Barred by the SEC

• September 17, 2025
• Emerson Equity LLC

James Dale Warring (CRD#: 3198200) was a previously registered broker and investment advisor.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 2000 and previously worked with 1^st Global Advisors Inc; R&M Wealth Management Services, LLC; United Planners’ Financial Services of America a Limited Partner; H.Beck, Inc.; Triad Advisors LLC; DAI Securities, LLC; and Eaglestone Wealth Advisors, Inc.

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in September of 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deemed it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Sections 203(f) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) against James D. Warring (“Respondent” or “Warring”). In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the “Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept.

On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that these proceedings arise out of violations of the Advisers Act by Warring, majority owner of the corporate parent of SEC-registered investment adviser EagleStone Wealth Advisors, Inc. (“EagleStone”). Over a period of years, Warring, acting knowingly and/or recklessly, breached his fiduciary duty to one of his investment advisory clients (the “Client”). Warring and the Client entered into a romantic relationship. After the relationship commenced, Warring arranged for the Client to make and forgive a loan to his family members; charged the Client and certain of her trusts unauthorized and undisclosed fees; and advised the Client to enter into agreements purportedly authorizing, waiving, and forgiving problematic transactions and fees. As a result of this conduct, Warring willfully violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

Respondent James Warring was permanently barred from associating with any broker, dealer, investment advisor, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or NRSRO. He was also sanctioned with a cease and desist, and given a civil and administrative penalty/fine of $450,000.00.

In addition, James Warring has been the subject of three other SEC AdvisorInfo disclosures:

• August 2025—Permitted to Resign from Eaglestone Wealth Advisors, Inc. “ The individual resigned during a regulatory investigation concerning allegations relating to fiduciary duty, fee practices, and management of client accounts. A related civil action was resolved through settlement without admission of fault or liability. The individual has entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC that provides for an associational bar, without an admission of fault, and the final order has not yet issued.”
• April 2023—Discharged by DAI Securities, LLC. “Plaintiffs allege that individual, acting by and through his investment advisory firm, trust company and accounting business, engaged in conduct (or aided or abetted conduct) constituting fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of Maryland SAFE Act, and violations of the Maryland Securities Act. The conduct is alleged to have occurred between 2010 and 2022.”
• March 2023—“ Plaintiff’s allege that individual, acting by and through his investment advisory firm, trust company and accounting business, engaged in conduct (or aided or abetted conduct)constituting fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of Maryland SAFE Act, and violations of the Maryland Securities Act. The conduct is alleged to have occurred between 2010 and 2022.” The damage amount requested was $6,800,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $5,000,000.00.

For a copy of James Warring’s SEC AdvisorInfo, 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.

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.

FINRA regulations require that a customer’s written authorization is required before a broker-dealer can carry out transactions in the customer’s account. In addition, the broker-dealer’s member firm needs to approve the broker-dealer’s authorization. These measures are intended to protect the customer. Discretionary trading allows the broker-dealer to unilaterally decide to buy or sell securities at any price and not have to check with the client first. Exercising discretion without authorization can be costly to investors, and broker-dealers and their member firms, too.

Excessive trading often occurs when a Financial Advisor puts his or her interests ahead of the clients and makes transactions solely for the purpose of generating commissions. Financial Advisors have a regulatory duty to recommend suitable investment strategies. One of the components of the suitability analysis is quantitative suitability.

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. 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.

The Wolper Law Firm represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, 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.