Our firm is investigating LPL Financial broker and investment adviser representative Christopher M. Baughan (CRD# 3193538) of Foxboro, Massachusetts for potential investment-related misconduct.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
Christopher Mark Baughan has worked in the securities industry since 1999 and is currently registered with LPL Financial LLC. According to his FINRA BrokerCheck report, he has been associated with the following firms over the course of his career:
- LPL Financial LLC (Fort Mill, South Carolina – Foxboro, Massachusetts branch) – Registered representative and investment adviser representative since December 2011.
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (Attleboro, Massachusetts) – Registered representative and investment adviser representative from October 2009 to December 2011.
- Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts) – Registered representative from December 2006 to October 2009 and investment adviser representative from September 2007 to October 2009.
- UBS Financial Services Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts) – Registered representative from September 2000 to December 2006.
- Salomon Smith Barney Inc. (New York, New York) – Registered representative from April 1999 to September 2000.
Baughan also reports a doing-business-as entity, Baughan Wealth Management in Foxboro, Massachusetts, in connection with his LPL Financial practice.
Christopher M. Baughan Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
Public records on FINRA BrokerCheck show one settled customer dispute disclosure involving an investment in a real estate security.
2023–2025 FINRA Real Estate Investment Unsuitability Arbitration – $12,000 Settlement
In a customer dispute reported by LPL Financial LLC, the customer alleged that an investment made in 2013 in a real estate security was inappropriate for the customer’s investment objectives and risk tolerance. The dispute was brought in FINRA arbitration (Case No. 24-00006) and involved alleged damages of more than $5,000 (exact amount not specified in the BrokerCheck report).
Key details from the disclosure include:
- Type of disclosure: Customer Dispute – Arbitration, settled
- Employing firm at time of events: LPL Financial LLC
- Product type: Real estate security
- Time period of investment: Investment made in 2013
- Customer allegations: The customer alleges that the real estate investment was inappropriate for the customer’s investment objectives and risk tolerance.
- Forum: FINRA arbitration, Case No. 24-00006
- Filing date of arbitration: December 29, 2023
- Date complaint received by the firm: January 2, 2024
- Status: Resolved/settled on May 6, 2025
- Settlement amount: $12,000
- Reported individual contribution: $0 (the report indicates that Baughan did not personally contribute to the settlement)
In his BrokerCheck “Broker Statement,” Baughan denies wrongdoing, asserting that:
- He was not named as a respondent in the arbitration.
- The complaining customer was a participant in an employee benefit plan, and the plan’s trustee—not the participant—made the investment decision.
- The trustee allegedly received and signed disclosure documents acknowledging the features, benefits, liquidity restrictions, and risks of the recommended investments.
- LPL Financial settled the matter for a “nominal” amount allegedly below the expected cost of an arbitration hearing.
Even when a broker denies wrongdoing and does not contribute personally to a settlement, a customer dispute disclosure of this nature is often a red flag for potential unsuitable investments, particularly where real estate or unsuitable investments may expose investors to long holding periods, limited liquidity, and heightened risk.
At present, BrokerCheck reflects one customer dispute disclosure and no reported regulatory actions, criminal matters, terminations, or bankruptcy events for Christopher M. Baughan.
To obtain a copy of Christopher M. Baughan’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) in the Context of Baughan’s Alleged Unsuitable Real Estate Investment
FINRA Rule 2111, often referred to as the Suitability Rule, requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer, based on the customer’s investment profile (including age, financial situation, tax status, investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, and liquidity needs). The rule incorporates three major suitability obligations: reasonable-basis suitability, customer-specific suitability, and quantitative suitability.
In the dispute involving a 2013 real estate security investment, the customer alleges that the investment did not fit their investment objectives and risk tolerance. In a case like this, arbitrators typically examine:
- Whether the broker and firm performed reasonable due diligence and understood the risks, liquidity constraints, and fee structure of the real estate security before recommending it;
- Whether the broker accurately assessed and documented the customer’s investment profile and considered the customer’s need for liquidity, diversification, and risk tolerance; and
- Whether the size of the investment or concentration in real estate or alternative assets exposed the customer to an unsuitable level of risk.
If a FINRA panel were to conclude that a broker recommended a complex or illiquid real estate investment that did not align with the customer’s profile, it could find a violation of Rule 2111’s reasonable-basis and customer-specific suitability obligations, potentially leading to an award of damages against the firm and, in some cases, the individual broker.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade)
FINRA Rule 2010 is a broad conduct rule stating that, “A member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”
Although the Baughan customer dispute is reported as a settled arbitration with no personal payment by the broker, FINRA Rule 2010 often appears alongside unsuitability allegations in investor claims and regulatory enforcement actions. In an arbitration context, a panel might consider whether:
- The broker’s recommendations and explanations of the real estate security were fair, balanced, and candid;
- The broker placed the customer’s interests ahead of personal or firm compensation; and
- The overall pattern of dealings, including how risks were framed and how follow-up questions were handled, met “high standards of commercial honor.”
Even when Rule 2010 is not explicitly cited in a disclosure, its principles are frequently used to argue that a broker’s handling of a customer’s account fell below industry expectations for ethical conduct.
FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public)
FINRA Rule 2210 governs broker-dealer communications with the public, requiring that all communications be fair, balanced, and not misleading, and that they provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts about a security, strategy, or service. The rule prohibits the omission of material facts that would make a communication misleading in context and imposes recordkeeping and approval requirements for certain types of communications.
In disputes involving complex or illiquid products such as real estate securities, investors commonly allege that:
- The risks, fees, and liquidity restrictions were not adequately or clearly disclosed;
- Written materials, illustrations, or oral explanations minimized potential losses or overemphasized income and stability; and
- Key information about the issuer, redemption limitations, or secondary market prospects was downplayed or omitted.
Where a broker’s sales presentations, brochures, or emails about a real estate security are found to be misleading, unbalanced, or incomplete, a FINRA arbitration panel may view this as inconsistent with Rule 2210’s content standards and as evidence supporting the investor’s broader suitability and misrepresentation claims.
For over 45 years, Robert Wayne Pearce has helped investors recover losses caused by broker fraud, negligence, and unsuitable recommendations. His firm, The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., represents clients nationwide on a no-recovery, no-fee basis. Call (800) 732-2889 or email pearce@rwpearce.com for a free case review with an experienced securities attorney.