The woman, who cannot be named due to a suppression order, says her experience with the tribunal should be seen as a lesson to other advisers who may get too comfortable with long-term clients.

In March, the Financial Advisers Disciplinary Tribunal (FADC) released its decision to censure the woman for breaches of two Code Standards, also deciding to suppress her name.

According to an Official Information Act request made by ASSET Magazine and Good Returns, staff at both the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and FADC spent a total of 1684 hours - about 210 working days - on the case.

Costs for both organisations totalled $20,739 (incl GST) and was made up of travel-related costs, transcription fees, courier costs and payments to committee members.

The FMA and FADC do not charge hourly rates for in-house staff costs.

In its decision, the FADC stated it had found the adviser had breached Code Standards 12 and 15 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Authorised Financial Advisers and she had failed to;

(a) In the case of three clients, to record in writing adequate information about a personalised service provided to a retail client.
(b) To demonstrate adequate knowledge of the relevant legislative obligations which result from the term "personalised service".

The FADC said her Code breaches were less serious than most and there "...is no suggestion that the Respondent has improperly benefited at the expense of her clients, or that any client has been disadvantaged."

Up until the decision, the adviser had never been censured in her almost 40-year career, but the FADC said the breaches were "not to be treated lightly".

"There is a need to reinforce professional standards and ensure the profession remains conscious of the significance of proper records," says the committee in its decision.

But the adviser says she felt the process and investigation were rushed and no time extensions were offered by investigators, putting her under more stress during a difficult time.

"Being near to retirement anyway, I had not taken on any new clients for about five years. It always felt like they wanted to make an example of me, but I was determined they would not do that so I took it all the way expecting I would be able to tell my story.

"In the end, it was the last straw. I decided not to go through the process to renew my licences, mainly because I was exiting [the industry] anyway."

She did not apply for a transitional license under the new regulations introduced on March 15.

"The whole process left a bad taste in my mouth - my integrity was being questioned and it has been tarnished.

"I'm not a product pusher and never have been, it's not about clipping the client's tickets."

The now-former financial adviser says she admits in hindsight her record-keeping may not have been as good as it should have been - as highlighted in the FADC decision.

"As a financial planner who has worked for the ongoing wellbeing of my clients, I would admit that my record-keeping was insufficient, as my relationships with those clients were 30 to 40 years in duration.

"The familiarity I had with my clients was my undoing, but each and all of them were well served.

"I could have done better, my comfort levels with my clients was probably my downfall, they [advice notes] were probably too rough, they were not prepared for an audit."

She still feels that her processes were in line with legislation and while she did have her day in court feels she has been misunderstood.

In a statement from the FMA regarding whether it considered the time and money spent on the case was worthwhile, its chief executive Rob Everett responded with the following;

"The FMA has a rigorous decision making and governance process around its enforcement activities, including those cases that are brought before the Financial Adviser Disciplinary Committee.

We focus on areas of compliance and conduct that;

- are likely to cause risk and harm to broader confidence in the markets
- hold participants to accounts for failing to meet their obligations
- send a strong deterrence signal to all market participants on the consequences for failing to comply with obligations
- maintain public confidence that the law is being upheld

There is always a public interest test to ensure that we are deploying our resources appropriately," Everett says.

A long-form version of this article was published in this month's ASSET Magazine.