The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has barred William Slattery (CRD No. 7739278) from associating with any FINRA member firm in any capacity. The sanction arose from findings related to Slattery’s conduct while taking the Series 66 qualification examination.
FINRA accepted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent—AWC No. 2024083148501—on February 27, 2025. Slattery accepted FINRA’s findings and sanctions without admitting or denying the findings.
The matter illustrates the substantial consequences that can follow violations of securities-industry examination rules. It also reflects FINRA’s view that integrity in the licensing process is fundamental to an individual’s eligibility to work in the securities industry.
William Slattery’s FINRA Registration History
Table of Contents
According to the AWC, William Slattery became registered with FINRA as a General Securities Representative in January 2024 through his association with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (CRD No. 79).
J.P. Morgan Securities later filed a Form U5 reporting that Slattery’s association with the firm was voluntarily terminated on August 23, 2024.
Although Slattery was no longer associated with a FINRA member firm at the time FINRA accepted the AWC, FINRA stated that it retained jurisdiction over him under Article V, Section 4 of its By-Laws. This provision permits FINRA to pursue disciplinary matters involving certain former associated persons.
The Series 66 Examination
On February 27, 2024, Slattery sat for the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) Series 66 Uniform Combined State Law Examination.
The Series 66 examination is a securities qualification exam addressing, among other areas, investment-adviser and securities-agent regulation, ethical business practices, fiduciary obligations, investment strategies, and applicable state and federal securities-law principles.
Before beginning the examination, FINRA stated that Slattery acknowledged the NASAA examination rules of conduct. Those rules prohibit cheating and prohibit candidates from using—or attempting to use—personal items during an examination, including electronic devices, phones, notes, or other unauthorized materials. Candidates are required to secure personal belongings before entering the testing area.
FINRA’s Findings Regarding the Examination
According to FINRA’s findings, Slattery took an unscheduled restroom break during the Series 66 examination.
FINRA found that Slattery accessed prohibited study materials and ChatGPT on a cellphone during that break. The cellphone, according to the AWC, had been hidden in a toilet-seat-cover dispenser in the testing-center restroom.
FINRA further found that, after returning to his testing workstation, Slattery changed at least two answers based on material he accessed on the cellphone.
The AWC characterizes this conduct as a violation of FINRA Rule 2010, which requires associated persons to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.
FINRA Rule 2010 and Professional Integrity
FINRA Rule 2010 is a broad ethical standard. It applies to conduct that FINRA determines is inconsistent with the honesty, integrity, and ethical standards expected of individuals associated with FINRA member firms.
The securities industry relies on qualification examinations to establish whether individuals possess the baseline knowledge required to work with investors and participate in regulated financial activities. FINRA’s disciplinary action in this matter demonstrates that alleged efforts to circumvent examination rules can be treated as serious misconduct.
In a heavily regulated industry, regulators may view conduct involving dishonesty, deception, or attempts to obtain an unfair advantage as relevant to an individual’s fitness for registration. FINRA’s findings in the Slattery matter were based on examination conduct—not on allegations involving customer accounts, investment recommendations, or investor losses.
The FINRA Bar
As a result of the findings, FINRA imposed a bar prohibiting Slattery from associating with any FINRA member firm in all capacities.
The AWC specifies that the bar includes clerical and ministerial functions. In other words, the sanction extends beyond registered representative activities and prevents association with FINRA member firms in any role unless the bar is otherwise addressed through applicable regulatory procedures.
FINRA also stated that the bar subjects Slattery to statutory disqualification under Article III, Section 4 of FINRA’s By-Laws and Section 3(a)(39) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Statutory disqualification is a significant regulatory status that may restrict a person’s ability to work in the securities industry. The impact of such a finding can extend to future registration, association, and employment opportunities within FINRA-member firms.
Acceptance of the AWC
In accepting the AWC, Slattery waived certain procedural rights, including the right to:
- Receive a formal disciplinary complaint;
- Answer the complaint;
- Participate in a disciplinary hearing;
- Appeal to FINRA’s National Adjudicatory Council;
- Seek review by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and
- Claim bias or prejudgment by FINRA officials.
The AWC becomes part of Slattery’s permanent disciplinary record. FINRA may also issue a public announcement concerning the disciplinary action.
As is typical in an AWC, Slattery agreed not to deny FINRA’s findings in future public statements or regulatory filings. The agreement states that he accepted the sanctions without admitting or denying the findings.
What This Matter Does—and Does Not—Establish
FINRA’s action against William Slattery concerns alleged misconduct during a securities licensing examination. The AWC does not, by itself, establish that Slattery engaged in customer-related misconduct, caused investor losses, made unsuitable recommendations, or improperly handled customer accounts.
However, disciplinary records can be an important component of an investor’s due-diligence process. Investors evaluating a financial professional may consider reviewing publicly available registration and disciplinary information, as well as the specific facts relevant to the investor’s own accounts and transactions.
Steps Investors Can Take When Reviewing a Financial Professional
Investors considering a relationship with a broker, financial advisor, or other securities professional may wish to take the following steps:
- Review the professional’s registration and disclosure history through FINRA BrokerCheck and other available regulatory resources.
- Ask how the professional is compensated, including whether compensation is fee-based, commission-based, or a combination of both.
- Request a clear explanation of recommended investments, including potential risks, costs, liquidity limitations, and time horizon.
- Confirm that the recommended strategy is consistent with the investor’s financial circumstances, investment objectives, and risk tolerance.
- Review account statements and trade confirmations regularly.
- Keep copies of advisory agreements, new-account forms, correspondence, prospectuses, marketing materials, and notes from conversations.
- Seek clarification or an independent opinion if account activity, fees, trades, or recommendations are unclear.
Potential warning signs can include investments that are not adequately explained, unexpected fees, excessive trading, account activity that appears inconsistent with investor instructions, unauthorized transactions, or difficulty obtaining clear information about a recommendation.
Haselkorn & Thibaut Represents Investors in Securities Matters
Haselkorn & Thibaut represents investors in disputes involving brokerage firms, investment advisers, financial professionals, and securities-related products. The firm evaluates matters involving allegations such as unsuitable investment recommendations, misrepresentations or omissions, unauthorized trading, excessive trading, concentrated positions, failure to supervise, and other securities-industry concerns.
Each investor’s situation is fact-specific. A regulatory action involving an individual professional does not automatically establish a viable investor claim, and investment losses alone do not necessarily indicate misconduct. Investors who believe they may have suffered losses because of improper conduct should preserve relevant records and obtain an individualized review of their circumstances.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal, tax, or investment advice. It is based on FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent No. 2024083148501, accepted February 27, 2025. William Slattery accepted the findings and sanctions described in the AWC without admitting or denying FINRA’s findings.
