Our firm is investigating LPL Financial LLC financial advisor Richard Francis Simonitis Jr. (CRD#2263459) of North Royalton, Ohio, in connection with reported customer allegations involving unsuitable investment recommendations and forgery.
Investors who believe they suffered losses because of unsuitable recommendations, falsified account documents, or other securities misconduct can speak with an experienced investment fraud lawyer about their potential recovery options.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Richard Francis Simonitis Jr. has worked in the securities industry for more than three decades and is currently registered as a broker and investment adviser representative with LPL Financial LLC in North Royalton, Ohio.
North Royalton is part of the greater Cleveland metropolitan area. Investors in the region can also review resources from a Cleveland investment fraud lawyer.
His reported securities-registration history includes:
- PRUCO Securities Corporation — Newark, New Jersey, September 1992 through April 2000
- Linsco/Private Ledger Corp. — Fort Mill, South Carolina, June 2000 through November 2004
- UVEST Financial Services Group, Inc. — Middleburg Heights, Ohio, November 2004 through February 2007
- LPL Financial LLC — North Royalton, Ohio, February 2007 to present
Current regulatory records reflect two customer disputes involving Simonitis: one denied complaint received in 2014 and one pending complaint received in 2025.
Richard Simonitis Customer Complaints
2014 Unsuitable Recommendations Allegation — Denied
A customer complaint received on March 25, 2014 alleged that Simonitis made unsuitable recommendations that resulted in market losses.
The reported products included:
- Equity-OTC securities
- Mutual funds
The customer alleged $250,000 in damages.
The complaint was denied on August 29, 2014. Accordingly, the allegations should not be characterized as established misconduct.
Investors who receive recommendations that are inconsistent with their financial circumstances, investment objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, or other relevant characteristics may want to learn more about claims involving unsuitable investments.
2025 Forgery Allegation — Pending
A separate customer complaint received on February 7, 2025 alleges that Simonitis forged the customer’s signature on an account form.
The disclosure identifies:
- Product type: No Product
- Alleged damages: No amount specified
- Status: Pending
Because this complaint remains pending, the allegation has not been proven, and no final finding of wrongdoing should be inferred from the disclosure.
Forgery of customer signatures or alteration of account documents can raise serious questions regarding authorization and the integrity of brokerage records. Investors concerned about similar conduct can review our discussion of stockbroker theft and forgery. The SecAtTy page specifically addresses forged account documents and related broker misconduct.
FINRA Rule 2111 — Suitability
FINRA Rule 2111 historically governed a broker’s suitability obligations for covered recommendations.
A suitability analysis can consider factors including:
- Age
- Financial circumstances
- Investment objectives
- Risk tolerance
- Time horizon
- Liquidity needs
- Tax considerations
- Investment experience
The 2014 complaint involving Simonitis alleged unsuitable recommendations concerning OTC equity and mutual-fund investments. However, that complaint was denied.
The applicability of Rule 2111 depends on the timing and circumstances of the recommendation at issue.
FINRA Rule 2010 — Standards of Commercial Honor
FINRA Rule 2010 requires FINRA members to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.
Allegations involving falsified customer signatures or account documentation may raise Rule 2010 issues if the allegations are ultimately substantiated.
In Simonitis’ case, the 2025 forgery allegation remains pending, so it should not be presented as a FINRA finding or proven fact.
FINRA Rule 4511 — Books and Records
FINRA Rule 4511 addresses brokerage firms’ books-and-records obligations.
Account-document disputes can raise questions concerning whether customer information, authorizations, and other required records were accurately created and maintained.
I would leave Rule 4511 unlinked. The existing link points to an unrelated individual-broker investigation rather than a dedicated SecAtTy Rule 4511 article, so removing that internal link improves relevance.
Can Investors Recover Losses Through FINRA Arbitration?
Many customer disputes involving FINRA-member brokerage firms such as LPL Financial are resolved through FINRA arbitration.
An experienced FINRA arbitration lawyer can review account records, transaction histories, communications, customer-profile information, disputed documents, and potential damages to determine whether an investor has a viable claim.
The FINRA arbitration process may involve:
- Filing a Statement of Claim
- Respondent answers
- Arbitrator selection
- Discovery
- Depositions in limited circumstances
- Motions
- Settlement negotiations
- Evidentiary hearings
- A binding arbitration award
Potential claims and FINRA arbitration proceedings are subject to eligibility requirements and other legal deadlines. The firm’s dedicated FINRA arbitration page explains the process in greater detail. (Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A)
Could LPL Financial Be Responsible for Broker Misconduct?
Brokerage firms have supervisory responsibilities concerning their registered representatives.
Depending on the facts of a particular investor’s case, conduct involving unsuitable recommendations, inaccurate customer information, disputed signatures, unauthorized activity, or other broker-dealer misconduct can raise questions concerning the brokerage firm’s supervision of the representative.
Where inadequate oversight contributes to investor losses, a potential failure to supervise claim may also warrant investigation.
A disclosure involving an individual broker does not automatically establish liability against either the broker or brokerage firm. Each investor’s claim depends on the underlying evidence.
Richard Simonitis Investors in Other States
Simonitis’ current securities registrations extend beyond Ohio.
Investors who worked with Simonitis or have similar brokerage disputes can also review resources from an Arizona investment fraud lawyer, Colorado investment fraud lawyer, or Pennsylvania investment fraud lawyer.
Those states are particularly relevant because current regulatory records identify Simonitis as holding securities registrations in each of them. (AdviserInfo)
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
For more than 45 years, Robert Wayne Pearce has represented investors in securities disputes involving broker fraud, negligence, unsuitable recommendations, disputed account activity, supervisory failures, and other investment misconduct.
The investment fraud lawyers at the Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. represent investors nationwide and can evaluate whether actionable misconduct caused your losses.
Call 866-860-8507 for a free case review.
