FINRA Rule 8210

A firm receives a Rule 8210 request asking for a representative's personal cell phone records that may contain business-related text messages with a customer. The representative objects, saying the phone is personal property. What should the principal understand about the scope of Rule 8210?

1. A.Personal cell phone records are discoverable only in a customer arbitration, not a FINRA investigationWrong. Rule 8210 independently authorizes FINRA to request relevant records in its own investigations.
2. B.Personal cell phones are entirely outside the scope of any Rule 8210 requestWrong. This overstates the exemption; relevant business-related content is not automatically shielded merely because the device is personally owned.
3. C.Rule 8210's reach extends to relevant business-related records regardless of whether they reside on a personal deviceCorrect. Relevance to the matter under investigation, not device ownership, determines whether records fall within Rule 8210's scope.
4. D.Personal cell phone records may only be requested with a court orderWrong. Rule 8210 requests do not require a court order; FINRA's authority under the rule is a membership condition, not a judicial subpoena process.

Why: Rule 8210's information request authority reaches records relevant to the matter under investigation, including business-related communications that occurred through personal devices, when relevant to the inquiry. The device's personal ownership does not automatically place business-related content beyond the reach of a Rule 8210 request.

True or false: A firm may satisfy a Rule 8210 request for documents by producing an accurate written summary of the relevant documents prepared by counsel, instead of the underlying documents themselves.

1. A.FalseCorrect. A summary, however accurate, is not the same as the underlying documents requested, and does not satisfy the production obligation.
2. B.TrueWrong. Accuracy of a summary does not substitute for producing the actual documents that were requested.

Why: False. A summary, however accurate, is not the same as the underlying documents FINRA actually requested; producing a summary in place of the documents does not satisfy the request.

A representative under a FINRA investigation resigns from the firm before the investigation concludes. Does his resignation end the firm's obligation to respond to a pending Rule 8210 request concerning his conduct?

1. A.Yes, once he resigns the firm has no further obligation regarding the pending requestWrong. This is the exact trap the question describes; resignation does not end the firm's Rule 8210 obligation regarding conduct during his association.
2. B.No, the firm's obligation to respond to the Rule 8210 request continues despite the resignationCorrect. Resignation does not terminate the firm's obligation to cooperate with a pending Rule 8210 request concerning conduct during his tenure.
3. C.Yes, but only if the resignation occurred more than 30 days before the request was receivedWrong. This invents a timing threshold that has no basis in how Rule 8210 obligations continue after resignation.
4. D.No, but the firm may charge the former representative for the cost of compiling the responseWrong. Cost allocation is not the relevant point here; the point is that the obligation to respond continues.

Why: No. The firm's obligation to respond to a Rule 8210 request concerning conduct that occurred during the representative's association with the firm continues regardless of his subsequent resignation, and FINRA retains authority to pursue the individual for a period after he leaves.

A firm receives a Rule 8210 request with a response deadline that operations realizes, close to the due date, it cannot fully meet because of the volume of records involved. The principal decides simply not to respond by the deadline, planning to submit everything once it's ready regardless of the date. What should the principal have done instead?

1. A.Nothing different — as long as the complete response is eventually submitted, the exact timing of submission relative to the original deadline doesn't matter.Wrong. Eventual full compliance does not cure silently missing a deadline without any proactive communication about the delay.
2. B.Contacted FINRA before the deadline to request an extension or discuss a revised timeline, since proactively communicating about an anticipated delay is different from simply missing the deadline without any notice, which itself can be treated as a failure to cooperate.Correct. Proactive communication about an anticipated delay is meaningfully different from silently missing the deadline.
3. C.The principal should have submitted a partial response covering only the most important documents by the deadline, without any communication to FINRA about the rest.Wrong. An unexplained partial submission still doesn't address the failure to proactively communicate about the shortfall.
4. D.The principal should have asked the representative under investigation to personally contact FINRA to explain the delay, rather than the firm doing so.Wrong. This misdirects responsibility for communicating about the firm's own response timeline to the individual representative.

Why: Contacted FINRA before the deadline to request an extension or discuss a revised timeline, since proactively communicating about an anticipated delay is different from simply missing the deadline without any notice, which itself can be treated as a failure to cooperate.