Whose conduct may draw a sanction under FINRA Rule 9280?

An attorney's only, a party's conduct being dealt with through the default provisions

A party's, an attorney's, or any other authorised representative's

An attorney's or a representative's, a party acting for itself falling outside it

A party's only, professional conduct being a matter for the relevant state bar

Counsel repeatedly uses abusive language toward opposing counsel during a hearing, having breached no specific ruling. Is that within FINRA Rule 9280?

No; the provision reaches only conduct that defies a ruling already made

No, unless the Hearing Officer has first directed that the language stop

Yes; other contemptuous conduct is a ground standing apart from defying an order

Yes, but only where the Hearing Panel rather than the Officer imposes the sanction

An attorney for a Party acts contemptuously at a hearing. What responses does FINRA Rule 9280(a) make available, and must a choice be made between them?

Orders under paragraph (b), exclusion of the attorney, or both

Exclusion from the session, or a fine, whichever the Hearing Officer considers fitting

Orders under paragraph (b) alone, exclusion requiring a separate proceeding before the Council

Exclusion from the session alone, any wider consequence needing a fresh proceeding

An attorney is excluded from a disciplinary proceeding for contemptuous conduct. What does the Code of Procedure say about FINRA's remaining options against that attorney?

The exclusion is the sole remedy, further action requiring the Council's leave

Other proceedings against that person remain open to FINRA

Further action is available only where the conduct is repeated in another matter

The matter must be referred to the state bar rather than pursued within FINRA

The Code generally bars interlocutory review of an Adjudicator's rulings. How does an excluded representative obtain review of the exclusion?

By waiting for the final decision and raising the exclusion on appeal from it

By seeking the Hearing Officer's permission, as for any other interlocutory ruling

As of right; this is the single exception the general prohibition allows

By application to the Chief Hearing Officer, who may refer it onward

An exclusion is upheld on review and the affected party asks for time to instruct someone new. What does the Hearing Officer weigh in deciding?

Whether the excluded representative's conduct was the party's own responsibility

Whether the party consented to the conduct that led to the exclusion order

Whether the remaining hearing time can absorb an adjournment of any length

Whether other counsel or representatives are already acting for that party

A representative is excluded from a Rule 9000 series proceeding for contemptuous conduct. Before whom is that exclusion reviewed?

The Hearing Panel sitting without the Hearing Officer who ordered it

The Chief Hearing Officer, who may substitute a lesser sanction instead

The full Board of Governors, exclusion being a matter of professional standing

Published orders on contested exclusions are comparatively rare. What accounts in part for that?

Exclusion orders are not published, so the proceedings leave no public record

Hearing Officers have ample milder tools for managing a proceeding first

Exclusion requires the agreement of both Panelists, which is seldom obtained

Contempt is dealt with by the state bars rather than within the proceeding

Within the 9200 Disciplinary Proceedings section of the Code of Procedure, which subsection holds FINRA Rule 9280?

The 9230 Appointment of Hearing Panel, Extended Hearing Panel subsection

The 9240 Pre-Hearing Conference and Submission subsection

The 9220 Request for Hearing; Extensions of Time, Postponements, Adjournments subsection

The Hearing Officer orders a document excluded from evidence, and counsel submits it to the Hearing Panel anyway. What makes that contemptuous conduct under FINRA Rule 9280?

A second submission after the Hearing Officer has warned counsel in writing

A showing that the document misled the Panel on a material point of fact

Proof that the submission disrupted the session, a defied ruling not being enough

The defiance of the order, which is itself the contempt whatever its effect

How far can an exclusion from the hearing or conference under FINRA Rule 9280(a) reach?

The particular session or the whole proceeding, as the conduct's severity warrants

The particular session only, removal from the whole proceeding counting as a suspension

The whole proceeding in every case, a partial exclusion not being available to the Officer

The whole proceeding together with any appeal taken from its decision

A respondent disobeys a Hearing Officer's order to produce documents about certain trades. Which order may the Hearing Officer then make under FINRA Rule 9280(b)?

That the respondent pay a monetary penalty fixed by the Hearing Officer for each day of delay

That the facts the order concerned be taken as established as the other party claims

That the respondent be suspended from FINRA membership until the documents are produced

That the respondent's counsel be barred from appearing in any FINRA proceeding for a year

Without substantial justification, a Party failed to disclose a witness that the Rule 9240 Series required it to disclose. What does FINRA Rule 9280(b) provide about that witness?

The Party may call the witness once it pays the costs that the late disclosure caused

The witness may testify, but only on matters the other side has raised first

The Party may not use the witness at the hearing unless the failure was harmless

The proceeding must be stayed until the witness is made available for examination

An exclusion order is sent for review. What happens to the hearing and related activities meanwhile, and what brings that about?

They are stayed by operation of law, with no order needed from anyone

They continue unless the Hearing Officer orders a stay on a party's motion

They are stayed once the Chief Hearing Officer grants a stay on the excluded person's application

They continue, the party proceeding without the excluded representative until review ends

What may the reviewing body do with an exclusion order that has been sent for review under FINRA Rule 9280(c)?

Uphold it or substitute a suspension

Uphold it or remit it to the Hearing Officer

Uphold it or narrow it to one session

An exclusion is upheld on review. The party has no co-counsel of record, no one else at the excluded attorney's firm can step in, and it has no other representative. How should the Hearing Officer treat its motion for an adjournment?

The motion is refused and the hearing resumes with the party appearing on its own behalf

No adjournment is due, since an upheld exclusion ends the party's claim to time

A meaningful adjournment is appropriate, so that new counsel can be found

An adjournment of a fixed length set by the rule follows automatically on the motion

Who may obtain review of an order excluding a representative from a disciplinary hearing or conference?

A representative the full Panel excluded, a Hearing Officer's order going first to the Panel

The party that was represented, the excluded person having no standing of their own

An attorney admitted to a state bar, a non-attorney representative awaiting the final decision

The excluded person, whether an attorney or a non-attorney representative

A practitioner relies on an account of FINRA Rule 9280 written when the rule was adopted in 1997. How far does that account still describe what the rule provides in substance?

Partly, since the grounds for a contempt sanction have been widened since 1997

Partly, since summary suspension was added beside exclusion as a later sanction

Hardly at all, since the rule was rewritten on entering the FINRA rulebook

Apart from an order excluding a representative, how is an adverse ruling made during a FINRA disciplinary proceeding to be challenged?

It is reconsidered at once by the Hearing Panel sitting without the Officer

It is preserved and raised on appeal once the proceeding is over

It is taken at once to the Chief Hearing Officer, review being available as of right

It is closed to challenge, having been made within the Adjudicator's authority

What consequence of an order excluding a representative is the reason it is reviewable as of right?

The representative loses any fee earned for work already done in the proceeding

The Hearing Officer who ordered it must step aside for the rest of the proceeding

The party is left without its counsel in the middle of an ongoing proceeding

The exclusion is recorded on the representative's registration as a disciplinary event

FINRA Rule 9141 establishes who may appear as a representative in a Code proceeding. What role does FINRA Rule 9280's contempt authority play in relation to that right?

It requires a fresh notice of appearance before each hearing session

It sets the standards a representative must certify before being allowed to appear

It lets a party withdraw its representative without leave once contempt is alleged

It is the means by which that right to appear may be terminated

An order excluding a representative for contemptuous conduct has to reach the Parties. Which feature of that order decides which of the Code's service frameworks governs it?

That it is a document the Adjudicator issues, not one the Parties exchange

That it is served by the Party whose motion produced it, as papers exchanged between the Parties are

That it opens a contempt matter separate from the disciplinary proceeding, as an initiating document does

That the Hearing Officer announces it on the record, so no separate service on the Parties is needed

FINRA Rule 9280 connects to FINRA Rule 9144's separation of functions through the capacity in which the Adjudicator acts when dealing with contempt. What is that capacity?

Reviewing the conduct on appeal, as though from a ruling made by another body

Managing contempt in the proceeding, rather than adjudicating the charges

Adjudicating the charges, contempt being decided as part of the merits

Prosecuting the contempt on behalf of the Department of Enforcement

A Hearing Officer sustains objections, limits argument and imposes lesser sanctions in the course of keeping a hearing orderly. How does the power to sanction contemptuous conduct stand in relation to that everyday authority?

It displaces that authority once a representative's conduct is called into question, the ordinary powers over the hearing falling away

It is a separate power that the Chief Hearing Officer must confer on the presiding Officer before any contempt sanction may issue

It is an exercise of that same broad authority over the proceeding, contemptuous conduct being one of the things that authority reaches

It belongs to the Department of Enforcement, which must charge the conduct in a complaint before a sanction for it can follow

Part of the reason FINRA Rule 9280 proceedings are comparatively rare lies with the attorneys who appear before the Office of Hearing Officers. What about them?

Their registration with FINRA, placing their conduct under Enforcement's oversight

Their small number, most respondents appearing without any counsel

Their duty to certify in advance that they will obey hearing orders

Their professionalism as securities defence practitioners

Published OHO orders on contested exclusion issues are relatively rare. What does the appearance of contemptuous conduct as a topic in OHO's by-topic index confirm?

That most exclusion motions are granted when they are made

That contempt is charged in complaints as a violation of its own

That contempt questions are referred out of OHO to be decided elsewhere

How does exclusion under FINRA Rule 9280 relate to the other means a Hearing Officer has of keeping a proceeding in order?

It displaces them once any party has objected to a representative's conduct

It is reserved for conduct that those milder means cannot adequately address

It is the first response, the milder means following if it fails to work

It is interchangeable with them, the choice resting on the Officer's convenience

Without substantial justification, a respondent failed to disclose information that a Hearing Officer's order required it to disclose. The Hearing Officer is considering an order under FINRA Rule 9280(b)(2) that the respondent may not support a designated defense. What must come before that order is imposed?

A finding by the Hearing Panel that the respondent's failure to disclose was deliberate rather than careless

Approval of the sanction by the National Adjudicatory Council, on the Hearing Officer's certification of the request

A motion for the order, and an opportunity for the respondent to be heard on it

A further order compelling the disclosure, which the respondent must then also fail to obey

An order required a Party to produce a person for examination and the Party did not do so. On what does it depend whether orders of the kinds FINRA Rule 9280(b)(1) provides become available against that Party for the failure?

On whether the Party complied with the rest of the order that required the production

On whether the person who was not produced is still associated with the Party

On whether the Hearing Officer warned the Party that failing to produce the person carried sanctions

On whether the Party shows that it is unable to produce the person

FINRA Rule 9280 | Financial Regulation Courses

Contemptuous Conduct

SERIES 24 | FINANCIAL REGULATION COURSES

FINRA Rule 9280 governs the authority of Hearing Officers and Hearing Panels to impose sanctions for contemptuous conduct during FINRA disciplinary proceedings and to exclude attorneys and representatives who engage in such conduct.

The rule establishes two responses to contemptuous behavior — sanctions other than exclusion, such as orders taking facts as established, precluding claims, defenses or evidence, striking pleadings or staying the proceeding, and exclusion of an attorney or other representative under FINRA Rule 9150 — and establishes the critical interlocutory review mechanism through which exclusion orders are reviewed by the National Adjudicatory Council or its Review Subcommittee as a matter of right — the only as-of-right interlocutory review available under the Code of Procedure.

The rule's paragraph (c) NAC review mechanism is expressly referenced in FINRA Rule 9148 as the sole exception to the general prohibition on interlocutory review and in FINRA Rule 9150 as the review mechanism available to excluded attorneys.

Together these provisions define the complete framework for managing contemptuous behavior in FINRA disciplinary proceedings — sanctioning it, reviewing it, and allowing proceedings to continue with new counsel where necessary.

FINRA Rule 9280 sits within the 9260 Hearing and Decision subsection of the 9200 Disciplinary Proceedings section of the 9000 Code of Procedure series. It was adopted by SR-NASD-97-28 effective August 7, 1997 and last amended by SR-FINRA-2008-021 effective December 15, 2008 as part of the consolidated FINRA rulebook transition announced in Regulatory Notice 08-57.

The rule has not been substantively amended since its original adoption. One selected notice is associated with the rule — 08-57.

FINRA Rule 9280(a): Contemptuous Conduct Defined and the Two Sanctions

FINRA Rule 9280(a) establishes the threshold for contempt sanctions and identifies the two available responses. If a party, attorney for a party, or other authorized representative engages in conduct in violation of a Hearing Officer, Hearing Panel, or Extended Hearing Panel order, or other contemptuous conduct during a proceeding, the Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel may impose sanctions.

The two-part definition of contemptuous conduct — violation of an order, or other contemptuous conduct — reflects the two classic forms of contempt in judicial and administrative proceedings.

The first category — direct violation of a Hearing Officer or Panel order — is the clearest form: a party or representative who directly defies a specific ruling of the Adjudicator has committed contempt by the act of defiance itself.

Examples include continuing to pursue a line of questioning after the Hearing Officer has sustained an objection and directed the examination to stop, submitting documents that the Hearing Officer has ordered excluded from evidence, or repeatedly raising arguments on issues that the Panel has already definitively resolved.

The second category — other contemptuous conduct during a proceeding — is broader and reaches behavior that is disruptive or disrespectful without necessarily violating a specific order. Abusive language directed at opposing counsel or witnesses, deliberate disruption of hearing sessions through noise or physical obstruction, bad faith representations to the Adjudicator, and other conduct fundamentally incompatible with the orderly administration of adversarial proceedings may constitute contemptuous conduct under this broader standard even without a prior specific order being violated.

The parallel with SEC contempt authority — 17 CFR Section 201.180 — is direct. The SEC's contempt provision similarly identifies violation of a hearing officer order and other contemptuous conduct as the two grounds for exclusion or suspension, confirming that FINRA Rule 9280 tracks the administrative law tradition established in federal agency proceedings.

FINRA Rule 9280(a) provides two available responses. The first — the sanctions other than exclusion set out in paragraph (b) — may be imposed on a Party, an attorney for a Party or another person authorized to represent others by FINRA Rule 9141. The second — exclusion under FINRA Rule 9150 — reaches only an attorney for a Party or another such representative, and removes that person from the hearing or conference, or any portion of it, depending on the severity of the conduct. The rule joins the two with "and", so they may be imposed separately or together — a contemptuous attorney may be excluded and the Party it represents may also face a paragraph (b) order.

FINRA Rule 9280(b): Sanctions Other Than Exclusion

FINRA Rule 9280(b) lets a Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel make such orders as are just in regard to a Party, an attorney for a Party or another authorized representative. They include an order that the matters the order concerned, or other designated facts, be taken as established in accordance with the claim of the Party obtaining the order; an order that the disobedient Party may not support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or introduce designated matters in evidence; and an order striking pleadings or staying the proceeding until the Party obeys. A Party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by the Rule 9240 and Rule 9250 Series may not, unless the failure is harmless, use the undisclosed witness or information at a hearing, in a motion or in oral argument. The separate statement that excluding an attorney does not preclude FINRA from initiating other proceedings against that person belongs to FINRA Rule 9150(b) — prohibiting an attorney from a specific proceeding does not exhaust FINRA's remedies for the underlying misconduct.

The practical significance of FINRA Rule 9150(b) is that an attorney who engages in egregiously contemptuous conduct — making knowingly false representations to the Adjudicator, repeatedly defying Panel orders, or engaging in conduct that would constitute a professional responsibility violation — faces consequences beyond the immediate exclusion from the pending proceeding. FINRA retains authority to refer the matter to the attorney's state bar for professional discipline, to initiate FINRA proceedings regarding the attorney's fitness to practice before FINRA, or to take any other appropriate regulatory or legal action. The exclusion from the pending proceeding is a proceeding-specific remedy; the broader accountability for contemptuous conduct is a separate matter.

FINRA Rule 9280(c): The As-of-Right Interlocutory Review Mechanism

FINRA Rule 9280(c) establishes the interlocutory review mechanism for exclusion orders — the provision that makes FINRA Rule 9280 the sole exception to FINRA Rule 9148's general prohibition on interlocutory review. The provision operates through three interconnected components: the automatic stay, the NAC or Review Subcommittee review, and the adjournment authority upon affirmance.

The automatic stay provision — the hearing, conferences, or other activities relating to the disciplinary proceeding shall be stayed pending the review by the NAC or Review Subcommittee of an exclusion order — is immediate and automatic. No Hearing Officer order is needed to implement the stay — the filing of the exclusion order triggers the stay by operation of law. This automatic stay contrasts sharply with FINRA Rule 9148's second sentence, which provides that interlocutory review does not stay a proceeding unless the Adjudicator orders a stay. The FINRA Rule 9280(c) automatic stay is the express exception to FINRA Rule 9148's no-automatic-stay rule, reflecting the serious and immediate nature of attorney exclusion consequences.

The NAC or Review Subcommittee review is available to any attorney or other authorized representative who has been excluded from a disciplinary hearing or conference pursuant to FINRA Rule 9150 — which itself cross-references FINRA Rule 9280(c) as the review mechanism. The review is immediate and as-of-right — the excluded attorney does not need to obtain Hearing Officer permission to seek NAC review, unlike the discretionary interlocutory review contemplated for other rulings under FINRA Rule 9148. The NAC or its Review Subcommittee may uphold or reverse the exclusion order.

The adjournment authority upon affirmance — if the NAC or Review Subcommittee upholds the exclusion, the Hearing Officer may upon motion by the affected party grant an adjournment to allow retention of new counsel or selection of a new representative — addresses the practical consequence of a sustained exclusion. A party whose attorney has been excluded and whose exclusion has been affirmed by the NAC faces the practical challenge of finding new counsel in the middle of a pending disciplinary proceeding. The adjournment authority enables the Hearing Officer to provide reasonable time for this transition.

The adjournment analysis framework is specified in FINRA Rule 9280(c) — the Hearing Officer shall consider whether there are other counsel or representatives of record on behalf of the party, the availability of other counsel or other members of the excluded attorney's firm, the availability of other representatives for the party, and any other relevant factors. This multi-factor analysis ensures that adjournments are granted based on genuine need rather than automatically — if the party has co-counsel available to continue the representation, no adjournment is necessary. If the party is entirely unrepresented and must find new counsel from scratch, a meaningful adjournment period is appropriate.

The Interplay Between FINRA Rules 9148, 9150, and 9280

The three-way connection among FINRA Rules 9148, 9150, and 9280 is architecturally important to the Code's procedural framework. FINRA Rule 9148 establishes the general rule — no interlocutory review of any Adjudicator ruling — and then identifies the single exception: except as provided in FINRA Rule 9280. FINRA Rule 9150 establishes the authority to exclude attorneys and representatives for contemptuous conduct and identifies FINRA Rule 9280(c) as the review mechanism for such exclusions. FINRA Rule 9280 provides both the substantive contempt sanction authority and the procedural review mechanism, completing the circuit that FINRA Rules 9148 and 9150 reference.

This three-rule architecture reflects a specific policy judgment: the immediate and severe consequence of attorney exclusion — the party being deprived of counsel in the middle of an ongoing proceeding — is sufficiently serious to warrant an exception to the general prohibition on interlocutory review. Every other adverse ruling in a FINRA disciplinary proceeding must be preserved for post-proceeding appeal. Attorney exclusion alone is serious enough to warrant as-of-right immediate review before the proceeding continues.

Contemptuous Conduct in FINRA Practice

OHO's published Guide confirms the contemptuous conduct standard at a practical level: Hearing Officers and Hearing Panels may impose sanctions for contemptuous conduct under FINRA Rule 9280, and may exclude attorneys or representatives who engage in contemptuous conduct during proceedings. The contemptuous conduct topic appears in the OHO by-topic index confirming that exclusion and contempt motions do arise in practice, though published OHO orders on contested exclusion issues are relatively rare — the severity of the automatic stay consequence creates a strong incentive for attorneys to avoid behavior that could trigger a FINRA Rule 9280 proceeding.

The comparative rarity of FINRA Rule 9280 proceedings in practice reflects both the professionalism of securities defense attorneys appearing before OHO and the availability of less severe remedial tools. Hearing Officers have extensive authority under FINRA Rule 9147 and FINRA Rule 9235 to manage the course of proceedings — sustaining objections, limiting argument, and imposing lesser sanctions — before reaching the extreme step of attorney exclusion. FINRA Rule 9280 is reserved for conduct that is genuinely incompatible with orderly proceedings and that cannot be adequately addressed through the milder regulatory tools available.

Connection to FINRA Rules 9141, 9143, 9144, 9147, 9148, 9150, and 9235

FINRA Rule 9280 connects to FINRA Rule 9141 — which establishes who may appear as a representative — as the mechanism through which that appearance right may be terminated for contemptuous conduct. It connects to FINRA Rule 9143's ex parte prohibition — FINRA Rule 9280 exclusion orders are Adjudicator-issued documents governed by FINRA Rule 9132's service framework. It connects to FINRA Rule 9144's separation of functions — FINRA Rule 9280 proceedings involve the Adjudicator acting in their contempt management capacity rather than their adjudicative capacity. It connects to FINRA Rule 9147's full procedural authority — contempt sanctions are exercises of the Hearing Officer's broad case management authority. It is the exception to FINRA Rule 9148's interlocutory review prohibition. It implements the exclusion authority that FINRA Rule 9150 establishes. And it connects to FINRA Rule 9235's Hearing Officer authority — the Hearing Officer manages the hearing and has authority to identify and sanction contemptuous conduct as part of that management function.

Counting the Five Days for a Motion to Vacate an Exclusion

An attorney for a Party, or another person authorized to represent others by FINRA Rule 9141, who is excluded from a disciplinary hearing or conference, or any portion of it, may seek review of the exclusion by filing a motion to vacate with the National Adjudicatory Council. Under FINRA Rule 9280(c), the motion must be filed and served on all Parties within five days after service of the exclusion order.

FINRA Rule 9138 says how a period like that is counted. In the Rule 9000 Series, "day" means calendar day. The day of the act or event from which the period begins to run is not included. The last day is included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, in which case the period runs until the end of the next day that is not one of those. Where the prescribed period is ten days or less, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays are excluded from the computation. Five days is such a period. Where service is made by U.S. Postal Service first class, certified or registered mail, three days are added to the prescribed period for response.

Suppose a Hearing Officer's order excluding a respondent's attorney is served on the Parties in person on a Thursday, and no Federal holiday falls in the following two weeks. Service was not made by mail, so no days are added for mail. The Thursday of service is not counted. The weekend that follows is excluded, because the period is five days. The five days are therefore the Friday, the Monday, the Tuesday, the Wednesday and the Thursday, and the attorney's motion to vacate must be filed and served on all Parties by the following Thursday. Counting the weekend as part of the period would end it on the Tuesday, and counting the day of service would end it on the Wednesday; neither is how FINRA Rule 9138 counts it.

A Party Unable to Produce a Person for Examination

Among the orders listed in FINRA Rule 9280(b)(1) is one dealing with an order to produce a person for examination. Under subparagraph (E), where a Party has failed to comply with an order to produce a person for examination, the Hearing Officer, Hearing Panel or, if applicable, the Extended Hearing Panel may make an order of the kinds provided in subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C). That provision does not apply where the Party failing to comply shows that it is unable to produce the person for examination.

Suppose a Hearing Officer orders a respondent firm to produce one of its former registered representatives for examination, and the firm does not produce him. The firm shows the Hearing Officer that it is unable to produce him: he left the firm before the proceeding began and has refused its requests to attend. The Department of Enforcement then asks for an order under subparagraph (B) that the firm may not introduce designated matters in evidence, on the ground that the firm failed to produce him. Subparagraph (E) does not provide for that order on these facts. It provides for orders of the kinds in subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) where a Party has failed to produce a person, unless the Party shows that it is unable to produce the person, and the firm has made that showing. Had the firm failed to produce him without showing that it was unable to, subparagraph (E) would provide for the order.

Further Sanctions for a Failure to Disclose: Motion and Opportunity to Be Heard

FINRA Rule 9280(b)(2) deals with a Party that, without substantial justification, fails to disclose information required by the Rule 9240 Series and the Rule 9250 Series, or otherwise required by order of the Hearing Officer, Hearing Panel or, if applicable, the Extended Hearing Panel. Beyond the bar on using the witness or information not disclosed, the paragraph provides that, in addition to or in lieu of that sanction, the Hearing Officer, Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel may impose other appropriate sanctions. Those sanctions may include any of the sanctions in paragraphs (b)(1)(A) through (C). The paragraph names two steps that come before they are imposed: a motion, and an opportunity to be heard.

Suppose a respondent, without substantial justification, fails to disclose information that an order of the Hearing Officer in a disciplinary proceeding required it to disclose. The Department of Enforcement wants the Hearing Officer to go further and order, as paragraph (b)(1)(B) allows, that the respondent may not support a designated defense. Under paragraph (b)(2) the Hearing Officer may impose that sanction on motion, after affording the respondent an opportunity to be heard. So the Department moves for the order, and the respondent is given the opportunity to be heard on it before it is imposed.

Examination Relevance and Key Takeaways

FINRA Rule 9280 is tested on the Series 24 General Securities Principal examination as the contemptuous conduct rule — the provision governing sanctions for disruptive behavior in disciplinary proceedings and the mechanism providing the sole as-of-right interlocutory review in the Code.

The key points to retain are these: FINRA Rule 9280 provides that if a party, attorney, or authorized representative engages in violation of a Hearing Officer or Panel order or other contemptuous conduct during a proceeding, the Hearing Officer or Panel may impose sanctions other than exclusion under paragraph (b) and may exclude an attorney or other representative under FINRA Rule 9150; FINRA Rule 9280(b) lists those other orders — facts taken as established, claims, defenses or evidence precluded, pleadings stricken or the proceeding stayed — and bars a Party that failed without substantial justification to disclose required information from using it unless the failure was harmless; FINRA Rule 9280(c) establishes the as-of-right interlocutory review mechanism for exclusion orders — the only category of interlocutory review available without Adjudicator permission under the Code; the hearing and all related activities are automatically stayed pending NAC or Review Subcommittee review of an exclusion order — an automatic stay that is the express exception to FINRA Rule 9148's general no-automatic-stay rule; if the NAC or Review Subcommittee upholds the exclusion the Hearing Officer may grant an adjournment on motion to allow the affected party to retain new counsel, considering whether co-counsel is available, whether members of the excluded attorney's firm are available, and other relevant factors; the three-way connection among FINRA Rules 9148, 9150, and 9280 creates the complete attorney exclusion and interlocutory review framework — FINRA Rule 9148 establishes the general prohibition with the FINRA Rule 9280 exception, FINRA Rule 9150 establishes the exclusion authority and references FINRA Rule 9280(c)'s review mechanism, and FINRA Rule 9280 provides both the sanctions and the review; and the rule was adopted in 1997 and last amended December 15, 2008 through SR-FINRA-2008-021.