In response to a Rule 8210 request, Tysk explained further:

At the time I thought it was rational and prudent for me to preserve facts and details known to me in chronological order . . . to write down the details of his complex file and our complicated relationship for my personal use so I would not forget them over time  . . . My only thought and purpose was to preserve for myself and my file the details of my personal and business relationship with [GR] as I recalled those details at the time.

Tysk testified that "[t]he notes weren't written for another reader"; he wrote them for himself. Tysk denied he acted to protect himself in light of GR's complaint letter. He also claimed that he was not worried that the references in GR's letter to NASD, the SEC, and the Minnesota attorney general were an implied threat that GR would report the matter to regulatory authorities if Ameriprise refused his request to waive the surrender charge. While Tysk asserted that he "wasn't concerned" about the complaint, he conceded that he did have some "concerns with the letter . . . because I knew the letter contained things that were not true."

Acting on that hunch, on May 8, 2009, GR's counsel sent a supplemental request to Ameriprise and Tysk to produce "[a]ll documents showing edits made by Mr. Tysk to the notes in the contact report . . . including but not limited to the edits made on May 27, 2008." This prompted Tysk's counsel on June 22, 2009, to ask Tysk by e-mail, "Do you know anything about any edits being made to the contact reports?" The e-mail continued, "I assume he picked the date [May 27, 2008] b/c that is the 'created date' stamped on the contact report  . . . My assumption was that was simply the date the report was printed off the computer." Tysk responded, "You are correct with your assumption. There are no other documents showing edits per the request." Tysk did not reply to his counsel's query asking if he knew "anything about any edits."

Tysk testified that after receiving the June 22 e-mail, he searched Act! attempting to locate earlier versions of his notes but was unsuccessful.  

On August 21, 2009, Tysk met for the second time with counsel to prepare for the arbitration hearing. This was when Tysk first disclosed that he had altered his Act! notes. His counsel immediately informed Ameriprise's legal department and asked Tysk to try to locate additional versions of his notes.

Tysk concedes that "a rep who modifies his notes makes us wince," and that altering the Act! notes was "not a best practice." But he insists that Enforcement failed to prove that he acted unethically in violation of NASD Rule 2110 and FINRA Rule 2010.

First, Tysk denies that he altered his notes to bolster his defense. He made the substantive edits in May 2008, six months before GR filed his arbitration claim. Even though this was after GR complained to Ameriprise about him, Tysk claims that he did not expect GR to file an arbitration action.  Tysk points out that Ameriprise's review of GR's complaint concluded that "there was no question" that the annuity was a suitable investment for GR. Therefore, he was justifiably "100 percent comfortable with the transaction," and confident that nothing would come of the concerns expressed in GR's letter.

Second, Tysk argues, he acted ethically and in good faith, because his motivation was to "make sure that his notes were accurate. Therefore the first cause of action must fail because it requires proof that he acted unethically, or in bad faith

As for the allegation that Tysk violated Ameriprise's document retention policies, Tysk argues that he "could not have knowingly or intentionally violated the firm's policies because he didn't know about the firm's policies." Furthermore, Ameriprise, which wrote and enforced the policies, evaluated Tysk's conduct and concluded that he did not violate them, a finding that Tysk believes the Panel should deem dispositive.

Tysk backdated a customer record and concealed the revisions he made during the discovery stage of an arbitration proceeding. We intensely condemn such deception . . .

In making our sanction determination, we have weighed Tysk's claims of mitigation, and found only aggravating factors associated with his misconduct. Tysk admitted to his actions, and they were intentional. The extent to which Tysk attempted to conceal his misconduct and avoid detection, even after knowing that he was a party to an arbitration proceeding, is also aggravating. As an example, during the arbitration proceeding his attorney directly asked Tysk whether he knew about any revisions to his notes. Rather than being forthright, Tysk chose to remain silent about his wrongdoing until several months after being confronted. By entering the backdated descriptions and attempting to conceal them, Tysk demonstrated a troubling lack of integrity. We agree with the Extended Hearing Panel that Tysk subverted the arbitration process, which is an aggravating factor. See Noonan, 52 S.E.C. at 265 ("If arbitration is to be a meaningful alternative to litigation, its processes must be fair and free of abuse.") If Tysk's misconduct had not been discovered by a forensic investigation, the ability of the arbitrators to find the truth would have been undermined. The fact that Tysk's concealment was revealed does not lessen its potential to harm the arbitration process; his concealment is an aggravating circumstance.

[H]e violated just and equitable principles of trade. He asserts that he supplemented his notes to make them more complete before his customer filed the arbitration demand and observes that FINRA does not contend that the revisions he made were false. Among other things, Tysk argues that his firm's policies did not prohibit his revisions, that FINRA did not conclude that they did, and that he responded to discovery requests as required by FINRA arbitration rules. FINRA argues, among other things, that Tysk's revisions were misleading and were "backdated" because he added detailed entries in the present tense to his notes as late as years after the events he documented.

[F]INRA's first cause of action alleged that Tysk violated just and equitable principles of trade by violating his firm's document retention policies, but it is unclear from the opinion under review if FINRA concluded that Tysk violated these policies. FINRA's second cause of action alleged that Tysk violated just and equitable principles of trade by violating arbitration discovery rules, but FINRA did not explain in its decision why Tysk's conduct during discovery violated just and equitable principles of trade. For the reasons explained below, we remand this case to FINRA to clarify its findings.

We cannot discern from the NAC's decision whether it concluded that Tysk violated firm policies by altering his notes. The NAC explained in a footnote that it "support[ed] the Extended Hearing Panel's finding that Tysk's actions called into serious question whether he complied with Ameriprise's retention policies" (emphasis added). This determination does not appear to constitute a finding that Tysk in fact violated his firm's policies. The NAC also stated, however, that it "support[ed] the Extended Hearing Panel's finding," which unambiguously concluded that "Tysk Violated Ameriprise's Policy." Indeed, Tysk's briefs evidence confusion over what exactly FINRA found in holding him liable under the first cause of action because, despite arguing that FINRA failed to find he violated firm policy, Tysk also challenges FINRA's "finding that Tysk unethically violated Ameriprise policy." 

Although the NAC found that Tysk "stonewalled producing the requested information until he was compelled by an arbitration order to have his computer examined by a forensic expert," it did not clearly address Tysk's argument that he relied on his counsel's advice in doing so. Elsewhere in its decision, the NAC determined that, because Tysk did not consult an attorney before he altered his notes, his claims of reliance on counsel were not mitigating. But that addresses Tysk's alteration of his notes before the arbitration was filed, rather than the second cause of action based on alleged discovery violations during the arbitration proceeding.

[A]fter reviewing the record anew, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Tysk's conduct contravened Ameriprise's retention policies under its Code of Conduct. We determine that Tysk's misconduct violated FINRA's ethical rule because, by altering his ACT! Notes, Tysk created the false impression that he wrote contemporaneous notes of his conversations with GR. 

We also find that Tysk's actions were unethical. Tysk did not just enter additional new note entries after GR complained to the firm. He deliberately created misleading evidence regarding when he documented his conversations with GR. Specifically, Tysk created for the first time 54 note entries and intentionally backdated them to make it appear that he had written down notes of detailed discussions with GR, when he had not. Tysk also supplemented 13 preexisting note entries to make it appear that his alterations were part of the original notes. Tysk's altered notes included new details about events and conversations he had with GR that occurred up to three years prior. Many altered notes directly addressed Tysk's investment recommendations that were the subject of GR's complaint. We find that Tysk engaged in a deceptive business practice that did not conform with the moral norms or standards of professional conduct when he altered his ACT! Notes to create the false impression that he entered notes of his conversations with a customer at the time of those conversations. His unethical conduct violated NASD Rule 2110 and FINRA Rule 2010. 

Although GR requested Tysk's edits to his ACT! Notes during discovery, Tysk did not produce them when asked. Having a hunch that Tysk's ACT! Notes were doctored, in May 2009, GR's counsel made another discovery request that Tysk provide "[a]ll documents showing edits made by Mr. Tysk to the notes . . . including but not limited to the edits made on May 27, 2008." Tysk's counsel asked Tysk outright whether he knew anything about "any edits being made to the contact reports." Instead of admitting that he altered his ACT! Notes extensively, Tysk responded: "There are no other documents showing edits per the request." Tysk's counsel then repeated Tysk's falsehood in response to GR's discovery request, stating "there are no such responsive documents." It was only when the arbitration panel granted GR's motion to compel discovery and ordered a forensic search of Tysk's computer that GR learned of Tysk's 54 new note entries and 13 note entries with additional details added. Tysk's intentional withholding of discoverable information was conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade. See Dep't of Enforcement v. Westrock Advisors, Inc., Complaint No. 2006005696601, 2010 FINRA Discip. LEXIS 26, at *19 (FINRA NAC Oct. 21, 2010) (finding the intentional withholding of discoverable information that is in one's possession or control constitutes conduct inconsistent with just and principles of trade). 

Tysk also failed to satisfy the discovery rules under the Arbitration Code. When GR's counsel requested Tysk's edits to the ACT! Notes, FINRA Rule 12506(b)(1) required Tysk to produce them, object to the production, or state the reason why he could not supply the documents showing the edits to his ACT! Notes. The evidence shows that Tysk took none of these courses of action. For example, although Tysk argues that he did not possess previous versions of his ACT! Notes, he still had the obligation under FINRA Rule 12506(b)(1) to explain his inability to produce the requested edits. By failing to act as required in response to GR's discovery request, Tysk violated the rule. Tysk also failed to meet the requirements of FINRA Rule 12506(b)(2). Instead of "us[ing his] best efforts to produce all documents required or agreed to be produced," as required by the rule, the evidence shows that Tysk made no reasonable attempts to search the saved ACT! database files on his computer and determine whether back-ups of his ACT! Notes existed. 

We find that Tysk's discovery violations of the Arbitration Code also contravened just and equitable principles of trade because Tysk acted in bad faith when he knowingly withheld providing his edits to his ACT! Notes in response to GR's discovery request. When Tysk  responded to his counsel that there were no documents showing any edits and revealed nothing regarding his extensive alterations, Tysk was deliberately concealing important information from GR and the arbitration panel. He was acting in bad faith. See Blair Alexander West, Exchange Act Release No. 74030, 2015 SEC LEXIS 102, *23 (Jan. 9, 2015) (finding respondent's concealed actions from his customer and his deceit further demonstrated deliberate intent and bad faith), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 27 (2d Cir. 2016). Had the arbitration panel not granted GR's motion for a forensic search of Tysk's computer, Tysk may well have hidden the truth from the arbitration panel. Tysk's misconduct threatened the integrity of the arbitration process." His failure to adhere to the discovery provisions under the Arbitration Code and withholding of discoverable information in bad faith violated IM-12000 and FINRA Rule 2010. . .

[W]hile Tysk claims that he relied on his attorney to make decisions about documents and information to produce in discovery and for litigation strategy, we find no evidence that Tysk solicited advice from, and was advised by, his attorney to withhold his edits until he was compelled to do so by an arbitration order. In fact, during discovery, Tysk's attorney outright asked Tysk whether he knew about any edits to his notes. Instead of openly admitting to his actions, Tysk diverted the question and answered that no documents showed his edits. Moreover, Tysk testified that, after his confession, he had no discussion with his attorney about whether to disclose to GR that he altered his ACT! Notes. We therefore find no basis to mitigate the sanctions under a reliance on advice of counsel claim.

We find that the record does not show that Tysk attempted to create a false impression as to the date he created the notes, either affirmatively or by implication. In May 2008, Tysk added information to his ACT! notes about earlier conversations and interactions with his client and assigned to those notes the dates the events occurred. But Tysk did not explicitly or implicitly represent that he made those entries on the dates of the events to which they pertained. Rather, the only physical record of the notes in the client file -- the printed contact report at issue -- stated on its face that it was last edited by Tysk on May 27, 2008. Testimony from the forensic expert also suggests that it was a "bad installation" of the ACT! program on Tysk's computer -- and not any action on Tysk's part -- which resulted in the program not saving the date each note entry was modified.

FINRA relies on the fact that Tysk manually "overrode the ACT! Notes default prompts that would automatically populate the current date" when he supplemented his notes with new entries. But Tysk says that he entered information about past conversations and events in order to create a chronological record of his relationship with his client, which is a plausible explanation for why Tysk electronically labeled that information with the dates the conversations and events took place rather than the dates he made the notes. Unlike in the cases that FINRA cites, there was no evidence or even allegation that the events Tysk recorded occurred at a different time than the dates that he documented they occurred, which if present would suggest unethical conduct and an intent to mislead.

[A]s noted above, over 90% of Tysk's supplements to his notes did not concern the annuity about which the client had complained. And there is no evidence that Tysk or Ameriprise relied upon the supplemented notes during the firm's suitability review. There is also no evidence that after Tysk's client filed his arbitration claim in November 2008 Tysk relied upon his supplemented notes in discussions with Ameriprise or his lawyers-not even the notes relevant to the annuity in question. No party to the arbitration used any version or aspect of the notes to support its case on the issue of suitability during the arbitration hearing. Finally, Tysk's testimony that he told his lawyer that he would not oppose a forensic examination of his computer is undisputed and suggests a lack of unethical purpose in supplementing his notes.

We need not decide whether Tysk violated the cited provision of Ameriprise's Code of Conduct because even if he did so FINRA failed to establish he thereby violated FINRA Rule 2010 and NASD Rule 2110. A violation of a firm policy does not necessarily mean that a registered representative has also violated these rules. On remand, FINRA explained that its conclusion Tysk violated Rules 2010 and 2110 was based on its findings that his "actions violated his firm's policies and constituted unethical conduct." But for the reasons discussed above, we find insufficient evidence that Tysk engaged in unethical conduct. 

[H]e was under no obligation to create new documents. FINRA found that the contact reports the forensic expert produced "were not creations as Tysk suggests, but rather were printouts of ACT! database files saved on the hard drive." As discussed above, the forensic expert's testimony made clear that his contact reports were not printouts that an ordinary user could generate without forensic expertise.