FINRA Rule 9222

Five enumerated factors guide the Hearing Officer's consideration of postponement and adjournment motions — the length of the proceeding to date, the number of scheduling modifications already granted, the stage of the proceedings, the potential harm to the investing public from delay, and any other matters justice requires. 

The rule applies continuously throughout the disciplinary proceeding from the filing of the first papers through the issuance of the Hearing Panel's final decision — creating a pervasive scheduling flexibility framework that operates at every stage of the hearing process.

FINRA Rule 9222 sits within the 9220 Request for Hearing; Extensions of Time, Postponements, Adjournments subsection of the 9200 Disciplinary Proceedings section of the 9000 Code of Procedure series. It was originally adopted effective October 18, 1990, amended by SR-NASD-97-28 effective August 7, 1997, and last amended by SR-FINRA-2008-021 effective December 15, 2008. One selected notice is associated with the rule — 08-57.

FINRA Rule 9222(a): The General Availability Standard

FINRA Rule 9222(a) establishes the general availability of the rule's three scheduling modification tools — extension of time limits, postponement of hearing commencement, and adjournment of convened hearings — through the single operative phrase for good cause shown. 

This good cause standard applies to all three tools identically: no extension, postponement, or adjournment is available as a matter of right; each requires the moving party to demonstrate that a genuine, legitimate need exists for the scheduling modification.

The temporal scope of FINRA Rule 9222(a) is comprehensive: at any time prior to the issuance of the decision of the Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel. This means the scheduling modification authority is available throughout the entire disciplinary proceeding from the day papers begin to be filed under FINRA Rule 9215's answer obligation through the final day of post-hearing briefing under FINRA Rule 9266. 

The authority is not limited to the pre-hearing period — the Hearing Officer can extend post-hearing briefing deadlines, adjourn a hearing that has begun for legitimate reasons, or postpone a resumed hearing session, all pursuant to FINRA Rule 9222(a), as long as the Panel's final decision has not yet been issued.

Three distinct scheduling tools are encompassed within FINRA Rule 9222(a)'s availability provision, each addressing a different timing circumstance. Extension of time limits for filing papers addresses the pre-hearing deadlines — discovery response periods, briefing deadlines, pre-hearing submission schedules under FINRA Rule 9242, and any other Code-prescribed or Hearing Officer-ordered deadline for filing documents. Postponement addresses the commencement of a scheduled hearing — the entire hearing date is moved to a later date before any testimony has been taken. Adjournment addresses a convened hearing that has already begun — the hearing is paused and continued to a later date or time after proceedings have commenced. Each tool is appropriate to a different stage of the proceeding's life, and the good cause standard applies to each.

The parallel between FINRA Rule 9222's extension authority and the FINRA Rule 9146(d) motion response framework is operationally significant. FINRA Rule 9146(d) provides that motions can be responded to within fourteen days — but the Hearing Officer may order a different period. FINRA Rule 9222(a) is the authority underlying any such ordering — extensions of the fourteen-day motion response period, like any other Code-prescribed filing period, are available through FINRA Rule 9222(a) on a showing of good cause.

The Good Cause Standard in Practice

The good cause standard for scheduling modifications under FINRA Rule 9222 reflects a balance between two competing interests: the legitimate need of parties for adequate time to prepare and present their cases, and the Code's mandate that disciplinary proceedings be concluded as expeditiously as possible. OHO decisions applying FINRA Rule 9222 have consistently emphasized that good cause requires a genuine, specific showing of need — not a general preference for more time or a strategic desire to delay proceedings.

Good cause grounds that OHO has recognized include genuine unavailability of key witnesses due to illness, travel, or other legitimate conflicts; disclosure of significant new evidence that requires additional preparation time to address fairly; counsel unavailability due to genuine scheduling conflicts in other proceedings; the complexity of recently received discovery materials that requires additional time for review and response; and other specific circumstances that genuinely impair a party's ability to meet the scheduled deadline or hearing date.

Grounds that do not constitute good cause include a general preference for a later hearing date, dissatisfaction with the scheduled timeline, a desire to pursue collateral litigation that the party believes might affect the proceeding, or the mere pendency of a motion challenging the proceeding's validity. OHO Order 25-04 — a 2025 decision applying FINRA Rule 9222 — confirmed that a respondent's stated intention to file a constitutional challenge to the proceeding in federal court does not constitute good cause for staying all deadlines and postponing the hearing. This confirms that FINRA Rule 9222 postponement requests must be grounded in genuine preparation needs, not strategic delay objectives.

FINRA Rule 9222(b): Limitations on Postponements, Adjournments, and Extensions

FINRA Rule 9222(b) establishes two layers of limitation on the scheduling modification authority — an overarching principle that hearings shall begin at the time and place ordered unless good cause justifies modification, and a specific twenty-eight-day time limit on individual modifications that can be exceeded only with documented justification.

The default rule that hearings shall begin at the time and place ordered reflects the Code's efficient administration mandate. A scheduled hearing represents a significant institutional commitment — the Hearing Officer's time, the two Panelists' time, OHO's administrative resources, and the preparation investments of all parties have been directed toward the scheduled date. A postponement or adjournment disrupts all of these commitments and pushes the proceeding's resolution further into the future. The default rule places the burden of justification on the party seeking modification rather than treating scheduling changes as routine administrative adjustments.

FINRA Rule 9222(b)(1): The Five Consideration Factors

When a motion is filed for postponement of a hearing's commencement or adjournment of a hearing that has begun, FINRA Rule 9222(b)(1) requires the Hearing Officer to consider five specific factors before ruling.

The first factor — the length of the proceeding to date — places the requested modification in temporal context. A postponement requested in a proceeding that has been pending for three years presents a different calculus from the same request in a proceeding that has been pending for three months. Long-pending proceedings carry a stronger interest in expeditious resolution — parties have been living with regulatory uncertainty for an extended period, investor protection concerns may have been unresolved for longer than is appropriate, and the cumulative delay associated with prior extensions and postponements may already be substantial.

The second factor — the number of postponements, adjournments, or extensions already granted — directly addresses the pattern of delay in the specific proceeding. A first-ever postponement request in a proceeding that has otherwise proceeded on schedule presents a very different case from a fourth postponement request in a proceeding that has been repeatedly delayed. Repeated modification requests are a signal that the scheduled timeline is not being taken seriously, and FINRA Rule 9222(b)(1) requires the Hearing Officer to account for this pattern in evaluating whether yet another modification is warranted.

The third factor — the stage of the proceedings at the time of the request — recognizes that different stages carry different considerations. A postponement requested six months before the scheduled hearing date has minimal disruption impact — the proceeding is still early and scheduling adjustments are easily absorbed. A postponement requested two days before a hearing that has been scheduled for months, for which witnesses have made travel arrangements and exhibits have been prepared, has enormous disruptive impact on all parties and the Adjudicator. The later the request in the proceeding's lifecycle, the higher the burden of good cause that the moving party must demonstrate.

The fourth factor — potential harm to the investing public if an extension of time, adjournment, or postponement is granted — introduces the public interest dimension that distinguishes FINRA disciplinary proceedings from purely private litigation. FINRA Rule 9222(b)(1)(D) is one of the only places in the Code where investor harm is explicitly identified as a consideration in a scheduling decision. When the charges involve ongoing harm to investors — a broker who continues to serve clients while their suitability or fraud charges are pending resolution — delay in the disciplinary proceeding directly extends the period during which that harm may continue. The Hearing Officer must weigh this investor protection dimension alongside the parties' preparation needs when evaluating a postponement or adjournment request.

The fifth factor — such other matters as justice may require — is the residual catch-all that preserves the Hearing Officer's ability to consider any relevant circumstance not captured by the four enumerated factors. Justice-based considerations might include the respondent's health, extraordinary personal circumstances, events beyond any party's control that genuinely impair preparation, or any other factor that a fair and reasonable Hearing Officer would conclude is relevant to the just resolution of the scheduling request.

FINRA Rule 9222(b)(2): The Twenty-Eight Day Limitation

FINRA Rule 9222(b)(2) establishes the specific quantitative limit that governs every individual extension, postponement, or adjournment: twenty-eight days is the maximum period unless the Hearing Officer states on the record or provides by written order the reasons a longer period is necessary.

The twenty-eight-day limit creates a structural presumption against open-ended or indefinite scheduling modifications. A Hearing Officer who grants a postponement without specifying a new hearing date, or who grants an extension without specifying a new filing deadline, has not satisfied FINRA Rule 9222's requirements — every modification must be bounded by a specific new date within twenty-eight days unless documented exceptional circumstances justify a longer period.

The documentation requirement for exceeding twenty-eight days — on the record or by written order stating the reasons — serves two complementary functions. First, it ensures that the Hearing Officer has consciously assessed why a longer period is necessary rather than routinely granting open-ended delays. Second, it creates an appellate record of the justification for the extended modification — enabling the NAC and ultimately the SEC to assess whether the Hearing Officer's scheduling decisions were consistent with the Code's efficient administration mandate.

The twenty-eight-day limit interacts with FINRA Rule 9138's time computation rules — the twenty-eight calendar day period follows the Code's standard calendar day computation, meaning the twenty-eighth day is included unless it falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, in which case the period extends to the next business day. When extensions of time for filing papers are granted, FINRA Rule 9138's three-day mail addition applies if service of the relevant document triggering the deadline was made by mail.

The Anti-Delay Policy and FINRA Rule 9222 Enforcement

OHO's application of FINRA Rule 9222 reflects a consistent anti-delay policy — a recognition that disciplinary proceedings that extend over years without justified reason fail the regulatory and investor protection purposes that the Code is designed to serve. A 2025 OHO Order applying FINRA Rule 9222 specifically refused to stay all deadlines and postpone the hearing merely because a respondent planned to challenge the proceeding constitutionally in federal court — confirming that the availability of parallel proceedings does not constitute good cause for indefinite delay of the disciplinary proceeding itself.

This anti-delay policy is reinforced by the five-factor balancing framework of FINRA Rule 9222(b)(1) — particularly the fourth factor's explicit consideration of harm to the investing public and the second factor's attention to the cumulative pattern of delays. Hearing Officers who routinely grant postponements without rigorous good cause assessment risk creating proceedings that linger for years, defeating the deterrent and remedial purposes of FINRA's enforcement program.

Connection to FINRA Rules 9147, 9221, and 9241

FINRA Rule 9222 operates within the broader scheduling framework established by FINRA Rule 9147's full procedural authority grant, FINRA Rule 9221's hearing notice provisions, and FINRA Rule 9241's pre-hearing conference framework. FINRA Rule 9147 grants Hearing Officers full authority over procedural and administrative matters — FINRA Rule 9222 is the specific articulation of how that authority operates with respect to time modifications and hearing scheduling. FINRA Rule 9221 establishes the twenty-eight-day advance hearing notice requirement — FINRA Rule 9222's postponement authority can extend a scheduled hearing date, but any such postponement must result in a new date for which adequate notice is provided. FINRA Rule 9241's pre-hearing conference framework is frequently the vehicle through which scheduling issues are raised and resolved — many extension and postponement requests are addressed at pre-hearing conferences where the Hearing Officer can hear from all parties about scheduling needs and establish a realistic but efficient hearing schedule.

Examination Relevance and Key Takeaways

FINRA Rule 9222 is tested on the Series 24 General Securities Principal examination in the context of disciplinary proceeding scheduling, the Hearing Officer's authority over time modifications, and the specific limitations and factors governing postponements and adjournments.

The key points to retain are these: FINRA Rule 9222 grants the Hearing Officer authority to extend filing deadlines, postpone hearing commencement, and adjourn convened hearings for good cause shown at any time prior to the issuance of the Hearing Panel's decision; hearings shall begin at the time and place ordered unless good cause justifies modification — modification is the exception not the rule; in considering postponement or adjournment motions the Hearing Officer must weigh five specific factors — the length of the proceeding to date, the number of prior modifications granted, the stage of the proceedings, the potential harm to the investing public from delay, and any other matters justice requires; the fourth factor — investor harm — is unique to FINRA Rule 9222 among Code scheduling provisions and reflects the public interest dimension of disciplinary proceedings involving ongoing investor exposure; postponements, adjournments, and extensions of filing time shall not exceed twenty-eight days unless the Hearing Officer states on the record or provides by written order the reasons a longer period is necessary; the twenty-eight-day limit creates a structural presumption against open-ended delays and requires documented exceptional justification for any modification exceeding that period; OHO decisions confirm that a respondent's intention to file a constitutional challenge in federal court does not constitute good cause for staying all deadlines and postponing the hearing; the rule was adopted in 1990 and last amended December 15, 2008 through SR-FINRA-2008-021; and FINRA Rule 9222 operates as the specific implementation of the Hearing Officer's general scheduling authority under FINRA Rule 9147 for the particular context of time modifications and hearing scheduling.