Table of Contents
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 forms of sanction available for contemptuous behavior — exclusion from a specific hearing or conference and summary suspension from representing others in the proceeding — provides that sanctioning an attorney or representative under FINRA Rule 9280 does not preclude FINRA from initiating separate proceedings against that person, 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) 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 sanctions. The first — exclusion from the hearing or conference — removes the contumacious person from the specific proceeding session or the entire proceeding depending on the severity of the conduct. The second — summary suspension from representing others in the proceeding — allows the Hearing Officer to prevent the attorney or representative from continuing to represent any party in the proceeding for its duration or any portion thereof. These two sanctions may be imposed separately or together — a contemptuous attorney may be excluded from a specific hearing session, or suspended from representation for the remainder of the proceeding, or both.
FINRA Rule 9280(b) provides that the imposition of sanctions pursuant to FINRA Rule 9280(a) does not preclude FINRA from initiating other proceedings against the sanctioned person. This provision mirrors FINRA Rule 9150(b)'s parallel limitation — prohibiting an attorney from a specific proceeding does not exhaust FINRA's remedies for the underlying misconduct.
The practical significance of FINRA Rule 9280(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 or suspension 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) 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 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.
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.
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.
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 two sanctions — exclusion from the hearing or conference and summary suspension from representing others in the proceeding; FINRA Rule 9280(b) confirms that imposing contempt sanctions does not preclude FINRA from initiating other proceedings against the sanctioned person; 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.
