Our firm is investigating Raymond James Financial Services financial advisor and stockbroker Drake J. Medeiros (CRD# 6226094) of Santa Rosa, California for potential investment-related misconduct arising from a recent customer dispute reported in his FINRA BrokerCheck record.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Drake J. Medeiros (CRD# 6226094) has been registered in the securities industry since 2014. He is currently registered as a General Securities Representative with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (CRD# 6694) and as an Investment Adviser Representative with Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. (CRD# 149018). Both entities list a branch office at 2500 Mendocino Avenue, Suite C, Santa Rosa, California 95403.
Medeiros has also reported investment-related employment with First Tech Federal Credit Union and Addison Avenue Investment Services, where he provides financial advice and services to members and customers in California. Over the course of his career, he has become licensed in more than 30 U.S. states and territories and has passed the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE), Series 7 General Securities Representative Examination, and Series 66 state law exam.
Drake J. Medeiros Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck shows that Drake J. Medeiros has one customer dispute disclosure, which is listed as a Customer Dispute – Settled matter.
Customer Dispute Alleging Incorrect Account Type
In a complaint received on July 15, 2024, a Raymond James Financial Services customer alleged that Medeiros opened the incorrect account type and that the account was not in the client’s best interest. The dispute involved mutual funds, and the customer claimed $25,000 in damages.
Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. is reported as the employing firm at the time of the activities in question. The matter did not proceed as an arbitration or civil lawsuit; it was a written customer complaint handled through the firm’s internal process.
Settlement and Outcome
FINRA records state that the complaint was settled on May 15, 2025, for $15,000, with no monetary contribution reported from Medeiros personally. The settlement is coded as a final, settled customer dispute in which the firm paid the settlement amount. Medeiros supplied a Broker Statement asserting that:
- The account opened was, in his view, consistent with the client’s needs and met industry standards.
- The client was carefully interviewed and the account type chosen to meet their stated goals.
- An independent internal evaluation by Raymond James concluded that his actions were proper and free from misconduct.
- The firm elected to settle the matter for $15,000 “without any admission of wrongdoing” to resolve the dispute.
Summary of Customer Dispute Disclosure
- Type of Disclosure: Customer Dispute – Settled
- Employing Firm at Time: Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
- Allegations: Opened incorrect account type that was not in the client’s best interest
- Product Type: Mutual fund
- Alleged Damages: $25,000
- Settlement Amount: $15,000 (no individual contribution reported)
- Complaint Received Date: July 15, 2024
- Settlement/Status Date: May 15, 2025
- Proceeding Type: Written customer complaint (not arbitration or civil litigation)
While the settlement does not, by itself, prove liability or wrongdoing, it may be a sign that other unsuitable investments or improper account-type recommendations could have occurred in the same or other accounts. Investors who believe they were harmed by similar conduct should consider having their accounts reviewed by an experienced securities attorney who regularly handles unsuitable investments and account-type disputes.
To obtain a copy of Drake J. Medeiros’s full FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability)
FINRA Rule 2111, often called the “Suitability Rule,” requires brokers to have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended transaction or investment strategy, including the selection of an account type, is suitable for the customer based on the client’s investment profile—such as age, financial situation, risk tolerance, investment experience, time horizon, and objectives.
In a case like the one involving the allegation that Medeiros opened “the incorrect account type that was not in the client’s best interest,” investors may argue that:
- The broker failed to recommend an account structure consistent with the client’s goals and fee sensitivity.
- The chosen account type resulted in higher costs, unnecessary commissions, or inappropriate features relative to the customer’s needs.
- The mutual fund recommendations inside that account did not match the client’s risk tolerance or investment objectives.
When a broker opens or recommends an account type that increases costs or risks without a sound basis tied to the customer’s profile, investors can allege a violation of FINRA Rule 2111 and seek damages for the resulting losses.
FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your Customer) and Account-Opening Obligations
FINRA Rule 2090, known as the “Know Your Customer” rule, requires firms and their associated persons to use reasonable diligence at account opening and throughout the relationship to know the essential facts concerning every customer. That includes understanding a client’s financial situation, investment goals, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and any special instructions or constraints.
In the context of the customer’s allegation against Medeiros, investors may contend that:
- The firm and broker did not fully or accurately capture the client’s essential facts at account opening.
- The broker failed to reconcile the customer’s stated needs with the type of account ultimately opened.
- The “incorrect account type” reflected a breakdown in the Know Your Customer process, leading to an account structure that did not serve the client’s best interest.
If a broker or firm does not adequately know the customer before opening an account or recommending a particular account structure, an investor may argue that FINRA Rule 2090 was violated and that the resulting harm should be compensated.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
FINRA Rule 2010 requires members and their associated persons to “observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade” in the conduct of their business. This broad ethics rule is frequently used as a catch-all in customer disputes where a broker’s conduct appears unfair or inconsistent with basic standards of honesty and fair dealing, even if it does not fit neatly into another, more technical rule.
In disputes involving alleged improper account types or unsuitable mutual fund recommendations, investors may assert that:
- The broker placed the firm’s or their own interests (such as higher fees or commissions) ahead of the client’s.
- The broker failed to clearly explain the pros and cons of the chosen account type versus other available options.
- The overall pattern of conduct—opening an account that allegedly was “not in the client’s best interest” and populating it with questionable investments—fell below the “high standards of commercial honor” required by Rule 2010.
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.