Former LPL Financial LLC Financial Advisor William Bernard Tunink Suspended

• April 23, 2026
• LPL Financial

William Bernard Tunink (CRD#: 2738224) formerly a registered Broker and Investment Advisor at LPL Financial LLC.

Broker’s Background

William Bernard Tunink entered the securities industry in 1996 and previously worked for Avantax Investment Services, Inc. and LPL Financial LLC.

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 2026, FINRA suspended William Bernard Tunink for failure to “respond to FINRA requests for information”.

 

For a copy of the FINRA suspension, click here.

 

In addition, William Bernard Tunink has been the subject of 25 disclosures, including the following:

 

• March 2026 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The damage amount requested is $307,131.26.
• February 2026 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $41,000.00.
• February 2026 – “Broker obtained loans from Claimant, which were used for an investment opportunity away from the firm”. The damage amount requested is $79,040.00.
• January 2026 – “Broker obtained loans from customer, some of which were used for an investment opportunity away from the firm”. The damage amount requested is $1,000,000.00.
• January 2026 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $75,000.00.
• December 2025 – “the representative did not act in the best interest of the retail customer by obtaining loans from the customer and borrowing funds from Customer for an investment opportunity away from the firm”. The damage amount requested in $400,000.00.
• November 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $143,930.00.
• November 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $145,000.00.
• November 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $108,065.00.
• November 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $107,770.00.
• November 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The damage amount requested was $463,249.00. The dispute was denied.
• November 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $155,000.00.
• November 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The damage amount requested was $183,503.00. The dispute was denied.
• November 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $105,820.00.
• October 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $25,000.00.
• October 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $106,732.00.
• October 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $59,500.00.
• October 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $115,000.00.
• October 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The damage amount requested is $91,800.00. The dispute is pending.
• October 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute was settled for $206,260.00.
• September 2025 – “registered representative breached contracts by failing to repay loans between January 2024 and October 2024”. The damage amount requested is $346,874.00. The dispute is pending.
• September 2025 – “registered representative engaged in selling away by selling Investment Units and entering into Silent Partner Agreement”. The dispute was settled for $205,376.00.
• September 2025 – “Advisor borrowed funds from customer for investment opportunity away from the Firm”. The dispute settled for $190,521.57.
• September 2025 – employment separation after alleges of “failed to disclose and receive prior approval for loans from customers; and settled a customer complaint away from the Firm”.
• August 2025 – “Customer lent $140,000 which had not been paid back”. The dispute settled for $130,600.00.

 

For a copy of William Bernard Tunink’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.

 

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3270, outside business activities in which Financial Advisors become involved must be disclosed.  FINRA Rule 3280 prohibits Financial Advisors from engaging in Private Securities Transactions, which are securities transactions that take place away from the employing brokerage firm.  The purpose of these rules is to ensure that Financial Advisors do not engage in selling away.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) strictly prohibits financial advisors from “selling away” or selling securities and investments to clients that are not offered by the brokerage firm with which they are employed. For example, it is illegal and a violation of industry rules for a financial advisor to recommend or even suggest that a client invest in the financial advisor’s own business, or a business operated by his or her friends or family. It is not necessary that the financial advisor earn any compensation for recommending an outside investment.

 

The purpose behind this prohibition is to ensure that a financial advisor only offers to sell securities that have been vetted by his or her employer brokerage firm through a rigorous due diligence process. Most brokerage firms have an approved list of investments, products, and research that can be provided or made available to clients. Any deviation by the financial advisor from the approved product list may constitute selling away.

 

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.

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. 

 

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.