Peter Doyle — Conduct that Led to Termination

Cleveland stockbroker fraud lawyerPeter J. Doyle Allegedly Engaged in Conduct that Led to His Termination from Morgan Stanley

Have you or a loved one invested your hard-earned cash with Peter Doyle, formerly of Morgan Stanley? Peter Doyle allegedly engaged in conduct that led to his termination from Morgan Stanley, according to a recent Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) currently under review by attorneys Jason Kane and James Booker.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Peter Doyle’s alleged conduct which led to his termination from Morgan Stanley are encouraged to contact attorneys Jason Kane or James Booker with any useful information or for a free, no obligation discussion about their options.

The Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane securities lawyers are currently investigating Peter Doyle’s alleged conduct which led to his termination from Morgan Stanley.

Doyle was purportedly discharged due to allegations involving adherence to industry rules and/or firm policy including with regard to use of trading discretion, according to the aforementioned AWC.

Peter Doyle, on June 20, 2017, in connection with an investigation of the alleged conduct that led to Doyle’s termination from Morgan Stanley, received a request from FINRA staff for his on-the-record testimony pursuant to FINRA Rules, the AWC states.

Doyle, via a telephone conversation with FINRA staff on June 28, 2017, and an e-mail on July 5, 2017, allegedly acknowledged that he received FINRA’s request and stated that he would not appear for on-the-record testimony at any time, the AWC states.

Peter Doyle Barred by FINRA; Doyle Allegedly Refused to Appear for FINRA Requested Testimony Connected to an Investigation Regarding His Termination from Morgan Stanley

Peter Doyle, by allegedly refusing to appear for FINRA requested on-the-record testimony in connection with its investigation into the conduct that led to his termination from Morgan Stanley, according to the aforementioned AWC currently under review by attorneys Jason Kane and James Booker.

Peter Doyle has spent over 2 years in the securities industry and has been registered with Morgan Stanley in Washington, DC since 2009 and also has had previous registrations including Wachovia Securities in Washington, DC from 2003 to 2008 and Prudential Securities in New York, New York from 1995 to 2003, according to his BrokerCheck report, and is also allegedly the subject of one pending customer complaint.

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

Securities Lawyers Investigating

The Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane securities lawyers often represent investors who lose money as a result of investment fraud and are currently investigating Peter Doyle’s alleged conduct which led to his termination from Morgan Stanley. 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 Peter Doyle’s alleged conduct which led to his termination from Morgan Stanley may contact the securities lawyers at Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane, Jason Kane or James Booker, for a free no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at (585) 310-5140 or via e-mail at arosca@prwlegal.com or jbooker@prwlegal.com.

phil korosec (1250 Posts)


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.