Christopher Jorgensen – Instructing a Client Not to Respond to FINRA

investment fraud attorney ClevelandChristopher S. Jorgensen Under Investigation Regarding Allegations that His Brokerage Firm, Summit Brokerage Services, Received a Customer Complaint Alleging that Jorgenson Purportedly Directed a Customer to Not Respond to a FINRA Inquiry

Christopher Jorgensen was under investigation regarding allegations that his brokerage firm, Summit Brokerage Services, purportedly received a Customer Complaint alleging that Jorgenson directed a customer to not respond to a FINRA Inquiry, according to a recent FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Christopher Jorgensen’s alleged directions to avoid responding to a FINRA inquiry are encouraged to contact attorneys Alan Rosca or James Booker with any useful information or for a free, no obligation discussion about their options.

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers are currently investigating Christopher Jorgensen’s alleged directions to avoid responding to a FINRA inquiry.

Christopher Jorgensen was purportedly a financial advisor and registered rep of Summit Brokerage Services from January 2012 to April 2017, and was allegedly terminated by Summit Brokerage Services regarding the aforementioned allegations, according to the aforementioned AWC.

What is more, Jorgensen was also allegedly terminated by Raymond James, and he has allegedly been the subject of at least two customer complaints, the AWC states.

Christopher Jorgensen Barred by FINRA for Allegedly Refusing to Respond to a FINRA Request for On-the-record Testimony

Christopher Jorgensen barred by FINRA for allegedly refusing to respond to a FINRA Request for on-the-record testimony, according to the aforementioned AWC currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

On March 31, 2017, FINRA staff allegedly sent a request to Jorgensen, through his counsel, for on-the-record testimony pursuant to FINRA Rules, and, as in his counsel’s email to FINRA staff on April 19, 2017 acknowledged that he had received FINRA’s request but would not appear for on-the-record testimony at any time, the AWC states.

Jorgensen, by refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony as requested pursuant to FINRA Rules, allegedly violated FINRA Rules, the AWC reports.

Jorgensen, based on the aforementioned behavior allegedly violated FINRA Rules and hence has been barred by FINRA from associating with any FINRA member firm in any capacity, the AWC notes.

One should also note that, according to the AWC, Jorgensen neither admitted nor denied the FINRA findings.

Securities Lawyers Investigating

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers often represent investors who lose money as a result of investment fraud and are currently investigating Christopher Jorgensen’s alleged directions to avoid responding to a FINRA inquiry. They take most cases of this type on a contingency fee basis and advance the case costs, and only get paid for their fees and costs out of money they recover for their clients.

Investors who believe they lost money as a result of Christopher Jorgensen’s alleged directions to avoid responding to a FINRA inquiry may contact the securities lawyers at Peiffer Rosca Wolf, Alan Rosca or James Booker, for a free no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0520 or via e-mail at arosca@prwlegal.com or jbooker@prwlegal.com.

Alan Rosca (1157 Posts)

Alan is a securities lawyer. He also teaches Securities Regulation at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He focuses his legal practice on complex commercial and financial litigation and arbitration, particularly in the areas of securities and investment fraud. His office is in Cleveland, Ohio.


In our legal system, every person is innocent until and unless found guilty by a court of law or a tribunal. Whenever we reference “allegations” or charges that are “alleged,” such allegations or charges have not been proven, and are merely accusations, not findings of fault, as of the date of the blog. We do not have, nor do we undertake, a duty to continue to monitor or follow cases about which we report, and/or to publish subsequent blogs regarding various developments that may occur in such cases. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research regarding any such cases and any developments that may or may not have occurred in such cases.