The Deceased Customer, His Estate, The Merrill Lynch Employee, The Trusts, The Annuity, the Expert, and the Lawsuit

September 14, 2022

The recent federal case of  Monique R. Snead, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John H. Snead; et al., Plaintiffs, v. Guadalupe C. Wright; et al., Defendants (Order, United States District court for the District of Alaska, 19-CV-00092 and -00209 (consolidated)
https://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/SneadOrdDAlaska220907.pdf involves a deceased customer, his estate, a Merrill Lynch employee, trust accounts, and an annuity. Frankly, they could make a movie out of this one. Until the movie is made, however, let's take note of the "Background" section of the District Court's Order [Ed: footnote omitted]:

This federal action involves a dispute involving certain Merrill Lynch accounts held by John H. Snead, the father of Plaintiffs, who died in August 2017. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Guadalupe Wright ("Wright"), who had been in a long-term relationship with John H. Snead up through his death and an employee of Merrill Lynch, unlawfully transferred funds from John H. Snead's trust accounts and fraudulently made herself the beneficiary of his annuity. In addition to the claims asserted against Defendant Wright, Plaintiffs also allege that Merrill Lynch facilitated these transactions for the benefit of Wright and to the detriment of the decedent and Plaintiffs. They bring multiple causes of action against Merrill Lynch, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and fraudulent nondisclosure. In furtherance of these claim, Plaintiffs retained Chris McConnell ("McConnell") as an expert in the financial services industry. Merrill Lynch moves to exclude all testimony from McConnell, arguing that his expert report improperly presents opinions on legal issues and that his opinions are unreliable because they are "replete with speculation, mischaracterizations of evidence, factual errors and unsupported assertions.

A Matter of Opinion (an Expert's)

Notwithstanding the somewhat lurid allegations, at this moment in time, the Court is considering a relatively mundane Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Chris McConnell. In parsing its way through the parties' competing positions, the Court starts its analysis with:

Federal Rule of Evidence 702: Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

As to expert McConnell's qualifications, the Court concedes that they "are not in question here" given his Master's Degree in Business Administration, his role as a Certified Public Accountant, and his 2004 achievement of becoming an Accredited Investment Fiduciary Analyst. Further, the Court notes that in addition to his certifications and degrees, McConnell has over two decades experience in the financial planning/advising sector including regulatory/compliance roles. at Page 4 of the Order. Notwithstanding McConnell's bona fides, Merrill Lynch argues that his proposed expert report offers [Ed: footnote omitted]:

improper legal opinions about the annuity and trust accounts at issue, including an opinion about how Merrill Lynch breached a fiduciary duty-one of the ultimate legal issues in the case. It also asserts that his opinions, legal or otherwise, are wholly conclusory, without supporting explanation, and based upon speculation and mischaracterizations of the evidence to such an extent that the court should deem any testimony from him an "unreliable nonsense opinion" that should be withheld from the jury.

at Page 4 of the Order

As to the nature of McConnell's report and its impact on a jury, the Court offers this characterization [Ed: footnotes omitted]:

McConnell's expert report is centered around the applicable duties owed by Merrill Lynch to John H. Snead and the beneficiaries of the applicable trusts, and whether any of Merrill Lynch's actions at issue in this case "violated any duty, appliable [sic] laws, internal policies, or customary practices." He offers an opinion in his report that Merrill Lynch owed John H. Snead and Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty and that it breached that duty. He also concludes Merrill Lynch violated various SEC and FINRA rules and regulations. 

McConnell's inclusion of these legal issues in his report does not require that he be outright excluded from testifying at trial. Testimony that touches upon or embraces an ultimate issue is not automatically objectionable. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit specifically has held that testimony regarding whether "[d]efendants failed to comport with industry standards" may be properly admitted at trial. testimony only becomes excludable when it includes an opinion on what legal conclusion should be reached by the trier of fact.

at Page 5 of the Order

Although the Court decided not to exclude McConnell's report, that door-opening was not without some qualifications:

[M]cConnell must refrain from offering the opinion included in his report that Merrill Lynch breached its fiduciary duties, because that is a legal conclusion that encroaches on the job of the fact finder. He may, however, offer testimony at trial to the extent his testimony can be narrowed to focus on explaining the applicable industry standards and best practices garnered from his experience in the industry and how Merrill Lynch's actions and decisions failed to comport with these standards and practices. He may offer opinions that touch on various financial regulations, as long as he can articulate his understanding of what each regulation requires based on his experience and why actions taken by Merrill Lynch fall short of these requirements and expectations.

at page 5 - 6 of the Order

The Report Is Not Disqualified

Merrill Lynch cited numerous examples in the report of what it characterized as statements based upon speculation or erroneous facts -- and further argued that some statements were nothing more than conclusory opinions that failed to cite specific policies, best practices, or regulation. In declining to disqualify the report for Merrill Lynch's reasons, in part, the Court explains that [Ed: footnotes omitted]:

[M]cConnell has a sufficient foundation of knowledge and experience to serve as an expert on standards of care in the financial services industry, and his proposed testimony is not obviously wholly unreliable. To find that it is, the court would have to conclude that his review of the evidence was erroneous or incomplete, but questions about the facts supporting an expert's opinions reflect on credibility, not admissibility. That is, the court cannot decide whether McConnell's opinions are "right or wrong."  Rather, its task simply is to determine whether McConnell's testimony has substance such that it would be helpful to a jury." Here, McConnell's qualifications are established and not challenged, and it is clear he reviewed the evidentiary record. Therefore, his opinions about the applicable standards of care and how they apply to the situation, which is included in his report to some extent, will be helpful to the jury. 

The court cautions, however, that McConnell may not testify solely to construct a factual narrative for the jury. He may not simply present some theory of the case favorable to Plaintiffs, particularly one that rests on speculation of malicious motives and forgery. Any testimony that speculates as to motive, intent, or mental state is not appropriate expert testimony and will be subject to objection and exclusion at trial. Furthermore, for every opinion and conclusion offered about Merrill Lynch's conduct falling short of industry standards, McConnell must be able to identify and explain the applicable industry standard.

at Pages 7 - 8 of the Order

Accordingly, the Court denied Merrill Lynch's Motion to Exclude.

Bill Singer's Comment

Compliments to the Court on publishing a nice, tight Order replete with sufficient content and context so as to make the rationale compelling. 

For those embroiled in an investment dispute, an expert's testimony (yours or theirs) is often a critical component in tipping the scales in favor of one side of the lawsuit or another. On Wall Street, some investments and some investment strategies are complex and tailored to the specific needs of a customer. In such cases, a jury may find it helpful to have someone patiently and convincingly establish what a given investment entails, how a specific strategy is designed, and whether so-called industry standards were satisfied. Obviously, it's important to really impress a jury with the background of your expert. On the other hand, just because someone has the credentials to testify about an esoteric investment or complicated strategy doesn't mean that that such a witness will have the courtroom demeanor necessary to win over a jury. Quite often what makes the really great litigators formidable opponents is their instincts -- particularly when it comes to choosing an expert capable of winning over a jury; or, in contrast, passing on someone with better credentials but likely to alienate jurors because of a imperious attitude. 

The first skirmish between the parties is whether McConnell's expert report is based upon his expertise and the facts at hand; or, in contrast, as Merrill Lynch argues, he's just shootin' the breeze and trying to pass off his opinions as facts. The Court is willing to entertain an McConnell's testimony regarding whether "industry standards" were satisfied by the Defendants' conduct; however, McConnell will need to stick to the facts and avoid offering his opinion. Sometimes, that's easier said than done, which is probably what Merrill Lynch is worried about here. There's mere run-of-the-mill opinion. There's an expert's opinion. There's testimony. There's speculation. Then there's the judge in the robes who decides what's what. 

The starting point for whether an expert should be allowed to testify is typically whether the proposed testimony is "helpful" to a jury. Yeah, I know, another bit of nuance as in what the hell is meant by "helpful." The tail-wind for the "helpful" analysis is whether the proposed expert has the background and experience with the likely issues involving his testimony. Preliminarily, the Court found that McConnell had the chops. The head-wind is whether an expert's testimony tackles the facts or strays into hypotheticals and what-ifs and becomes mere opinion.

Assuming that both parties will present their version of what did and didn't happen, the role of the jury is to digest the competing narratives, form their own opinion based upon such testimony as to what likely did or did happen and what should or should not have happened. As such, judges respect the juror's role in developing an opinion as a trier-of-fact. Courts don't tolerate efforts to strong-arm an expert's mere opinion in a manner that suggests it is an alternative to a juror's deliberations derived from the evidence at trial. All of which explains why the Court admonished that McConnell:

may not simply present some theory of the case favorable to Plaintiffs, particularly one that rests on speculation of malicious motives and forgery. Any testimony that speculates as to motive, intent, or mental state is not appropriate expert testimony and will be subject to objection and exclusion at trial. Furthermore, for every opinion and conclusion offered about Merrill Lynch's conduct falling short of industry standards, McConnell must be able to identify and explain the applicable industry standard.


The Deceased Customer, His Estate, The Merrill Lynch Employee, The Trusts, The Annuity, the Expert, and the Lawsuit (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)

Banker Pleads Guilty to Bank Secrecy Act Charges (DOJ Release)

SEC Denies Whistleblower Award to Claimant Citing NFA Status
Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims

SEC Charges South Florida Venture Capital Firm and Others with Acting as Unregistered Brokers and Selling $3 Million in Securities to Investors (SEC Release)

FINRA Fines and Suspends Former MM Global Securities Rep for Instant Messaging
In the Matter of Peng Zhang, Respondent (FINRA AWC)

UPDATED: Stone Cold Day of Reckoning for FINRA and Self Regulation (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)

STANDING RESPONSE TO DMCA TAKEDOWN NOTICES PERTAINING TO COVERAGE OF In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Jay Lombard, Claimant vs. GunnAllen Financial, Inc., and David Neil Soiferman, Respondents / RE-POSTED IN RESPONSE TO September 13, 2022 / DMCA Takedown Notice. Prior 2020 DMCA Notice Reversed

Man Sentenced to 135 months for Operating a "Ponzi" Scheme and Committing Securities and Bank Fraud (DOJ Release)

SEC Charges Former Investment Adviser with Stealing from Clients (SEC Release)

SEC Awards Joint Claimants $500,000 Whistleblower Award
Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims

SEC Charges Four Underwriters in First Actions Enforcing Municipal Bond Disclosure Law (SEC Release)

SEC Brings Settled Actions Charging Cherry-Picking and Compliance and Supervisory Failures (SEC Release)

SEC Charges VMware with Misleading Investors by Obscuring Financial Performance (SEC Release)

Tippee Pleads Guilty In First Ever Cryptocurrency Insider Trading Case / Nikhil Wahi Traded Based on Tips From a Former Coinbase Employee Regarding Crypto Assets That Were Going to be Listed on Coinbase Exchanges (DOJ Release)

Romanian National Sentenced to Prison for Role in International Online Auction Fraud Scheme (DOJ Release)

FINRA Fines BofA Securities, Inc. $5 Million for Large Options Position Reporting Failures / Firm Failed to Report Over-the-Counter Options Positions in More Than 7.4 Million Instances (FINRA Release)

SEC Charges Hudson Advisors and Lone Star Global for Failing to Disclose that Fund Fees Included More Than $50 Million of Owner's Income Tax Liability (SEC Release)

Remarks at the "SEC Speaks" Conference 2022 by SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda

SEC Denies Whistleblower Award to Claimant 
Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims

SEC Denies Whistleblower Award to Claimant 
Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims

SEC Denies Whistleblower Award to Claimant 
Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims

SEC Denies Whistleblower Award to Claimant Citing Untimely Filing
Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims

SEC Denies Whistleblower Award to Claimant Citing "Potential or Theoretical Use"
Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims

FINRA Censures and Fines SagePoint for Financial Margin Suitability
In the Matter of SagePoint Financial, Inc., Respondent (FINRA AWC)

FINRA Censures, Fines, and Imposes Outside Consultant Undertaking on Glendale Securities
In the Matter of Glendale Securities, Inc., Respondent (FINRA AWC)

FINRA Censures, Fines, and Prohibits Market Access in MM Global Securities, Inc. Settlement
In the Matter of MM Global Securities, Inc., Respondent (FINRA AWC)

FINRA Fines and Suspends Former NYLife Securities LLC Rep for Private Securities Transaction and OBA
In the Matter of Ronald Coy Bailey, Respondent (FINRA AWC)