The FINRA Arbitration
The Forum Oppenheimer Chose. The Result Was Zero.
Why the family was in FINRA, not in court
A family that believes a fiduciary breached its duty to a dying, cognitively impaired client cannot simply file a lawsuit against Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer’s client agreement takes that right away before any dispute exists. Every client signs it. Lawrence Weiner signed it.
This is the clause, exactly as Oppenheimer itself filed it in this case:
What Oppenheimer’s Client Agreement Says — ¶ 33, Arbitration Disclosures
“A. ALL PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT ARE GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO SUE EACH OTHER IN COURT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE ARBITRATION FORUM IN WHICH A CLAIM IS FILED.”
“B. ARBITRATION AWARDS ARE GENERALLY FINAL AND BINDING; A PARTY’S ABILITY TO HAVE A COURT REVERSE OR MODIFY AN ARBITRATION AWARD IS VERY LIMITED.”
“C. THE ABILITY OF THE PARTIES TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS, WITNESS STATEMENTS AND OTHER DISCOVERY IS GENERALLY MORE LIMITED IN ARBITRATION THAN IN COURT PROCEEDINGS.”
“D. THE ARBITRATORS DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE REASON(S) FOR THEIR AWARD UNLESS, IN AN ELIGIBLE CASE, A JOINT REQUEST FOR AN EXPLAINED DECISION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY ALL PARTIES TO THE PANEL AT LEAST 20 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST SCHEDULED HEARING DATE.”
Source: Oppenheimer Client Agreement, Version 3/2017, ¶ 33 — filed by Oppenheimer with its Amended Statement of Answer. Ex. 8.
Every one of those four sentences came true in this case. The family could not go to court. Discovery was limited — and what was promised was not delivered. The award gave no reasons. And when the family asked a federal court to review it, that review was, exactly as the clause warns, “very limited.”
The case
FINRA Dispute Resolution Services Case No. 24-02286. Claimants: Jordan Tepper Weiner and Terri P. Tepper. Respondent: Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. Arbitrator: Peter Ordower, sitting alone.
The claims were breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and violations of FINRA Rules 2010, 3110 and 2165 — the senior-investor rule. The family had no lawyer. Jordan Tepper Weiner, who is not an attorney, represented them. Oppenheimer was represented by its own in-house counsel, John T. McGuire.
What the family faced: the record, entry by entry
Each entry below is a dated event and the document that records it.
Dec. 19 & 23, 2024
Oppenheimer told the arbitrator — twice, in its Statement of Answer and its Amended Statement of Answer — that the fee increase happened in “mid-2022.” Its own complaint department had already written that the higher fee was charged from January 1, 2021. At the hearing, its counsel placed “the fee increase in January 2021.”
Document: Ex. 18 at 2; Ex. 8 at 2; Ex. 2; 5/7/25 Tr. 198:1–2
Jan. 21, 2025
Oppenheimer moved to preclude the family’s witness list, expert letter, and expert credibility details. Denied February 11, 2025.
Document: Ex. 3 at 2
Feb. 21, 2025
Oppenheimer opposed the written report of Lawrence Weiner’s physician and asked that it be precluded “from any consideration,” so the arbitrator could observe the witness’s “evident bias, lack of credibility and/or lack of expertise.” Live testimony was required.
Document: Ex. 16
Feb. 26–27, 2025
Oppenheimer conditioned document production on the family signing a confidentiality agreement. Its counsel wrote to the arbitrator: “Oppenheimer will not be producing any information without this agreement.” The arbitrator denied the demand on March 14.
Document: Ex. 15-A at 1–2 (quoting the letter); Ex. 5, Ruling 1
Mar. 3, 2025
The family moved for sanctions and oversight of discovery. The motion was not decided until the award itself, where it was denied.
Document: Ex. 15-A; Ex. 3 at 3
Mar. 14, 2025
At a conference, Oppenheimer “voluntarily agreed” to produce its documents in files of no more than 30 MB each, by March 24. The arbitrator ordered it to “produce all documents regarding the accounts at issue and the account holder.”
Document: Ex. 5, Rulings 2–4
Mar. 26, 2025
Twelve days later, the family wrote to Oppenheimer, copying FINRA, that it was still waiting for the account “financials in an Excel Spreadsheet” that Mr. McGuire told the arbitrator would be sent, and for the 30 MB files.
Document: Ex. 15-B
Mar. 31, 2025
Oppenheimer opposed Jordan Tepper Weiner’s motion to be recognized as a claimant.
Document: Ex. 3 at 3
Apr. 2, 2025
Motion to compel: Oppenheimer “sent log files not financial statements.” The family asked for “Complete Excel spreadsheets showing all fees and commissions” and the signed “bonus” letter.
Document: Ex. 6
Apr. 10, 2025
Oppenheimer’s response: “Oppenheimer never agreed to produce such documents in excel.” It admitted its largest file was 60 MB. The arbitrator denied the motion to compel, but ruled the family “may raise those issues at the May 7 hearing.”
Document: Ex. 15-C at 1–2; Ex. 4
Apr. 21, 2025
Oppenheimer’s counsel emailed Jordan Tepper Weiner directly (full text below).
Document: Ex. 10
Apr. 28, 2025
Asked again for the total fees and commissions charged, Oppenheimer’s counsel answered: “It is total lunacy.” He acknowledged files “bigger than 30 megabytes.”
Document: 4/28/25 Tr. 37:22–38:14; 39:2–6
May 7, 2025
At the hearing, the family raised the substituted log file, as the April 10 order invited. The arbitrator: “I would suggest we stick to the substance of the dispute.” Oppenheimer then offered that same login log as its own exhibit, to argue about Lawrence Weiner’s capacity.
Document: 5/7/25 Tr. 119:1–14; 145:6–20
Never
The fee-and-commission spreadsheets were never produced. Neither was the signed “bonus” letter. Oppenheimer produced no note or email showing the advisor ever told the family about the increase.
Document: Ex. 6; 5/7/25 Tr. 90:19–91:12
What Was Asked For, and What Arrived
Asked for: “Complete Excel spreadsheets showing all fees and commissions.” (Ex. 6)
What it agreed to on March 14: 30 MB files.
Arrived: a Client Activity Log — timestamps of when someone logged in to view the accounts. No fees. No commissions. No financial data.
Oppenheimer’s answer: “Oppenheimer never agreed to produce such documents in excel.” (Ex. 15-C)
What it sent: roughly 900 MB, with files up to 60 MB.
Both the request and the response are published here. Compare them yourself.
Written medical reports were not enough. So the doctor testified live.
The family submitted written reports from Lawrence Weiner’s physician, Dr. Ami Desai, and from his Parkinson’s trainer, Nick Gorsline, who worked with him at the NeuroBalance Center from January 2019 through December 2023. They asked the arbitrator to accept the physician’s written report so a practicing internist would not lose a day with her patients.
Oppenheimer opposed. Live testimony was required. Both witnesses testified live on May 7, 2025, at the family’s own expense — $9,000 in expert fees.
What the Medical Witnesses Said
Dr. Ami Desai, treating physician: the record shows “a clear progression from mild changes in 2017 to significant impairment by Jan 2021.” (Ex. 9 at 4)
Nick Gorsline, Parkinson’s trainer, under oath: “[b]eginning in 2020” he “noted significant progression in both motor skills and cognitive symptoms” and “marked changes in his ability to follow complex instructions.” (5/7/25 Tr. 58:11–14)
Oppenheimer’s medical witness: none. Its only witness was the advisor.
What the award says about any of it: nothing.
Under oath: what was said, and what the documents show
Six witnesses were sworn at the May 7, 2025 hearing. On three central points, the sworn testimony of Oppenheimer’s witness and Oppenheimer’s own filings cannot all be true at once.
The bonus
The family’s side — sworn or documented
Terri Tepper, Jordan Tepper Weiner, and Nona Ullman each testified under oath that Jerald Hymen announced Lawrence Weiner had given him a bonus. (5/7/25 Tr. 22:12–15; 99:1–5; 73:13–17)
Oppenheimer’s side — sworn or filed
Mr. Hymen, under oath: “For them to sit here on this hearing today and say that I was at their house offering them a bonus, that’s just not true at all.” (5/7/25 Tr. 175:5–8)
How the increase was authorized
The family’s side — sworn or documented
Oppenheimer’s own filing: Mr. Weiner authorized the increase “in person and in writing.” (Ex. 8 at 2)
Oppenheimer’s side — sworn or filed
Mr. Hymen, under oath: he told Mr. Weiner by phone he was sending a letter; asked about later conversations — “There were no subsequent conversations.” (5/7/25 Tr. 177:5–14)
When the increase took effect
The family’s side — sworn or documented
Oppenheimer’s complaint department: the quarter beginning January 1, 2021 was “credited back” and re-charged at the higher rate. (Ex. 2 at 2)
Oppenheimer’s side — sworn or filed
Oppenheimer’s Answer and Amended Answer: “mid-2022.” (Ex. 18 at 2; Ex. 8 at 2) Its counsel’s closing: “January 2021.” (5/7/25 Tr. 198:1–2)
The award contains no finding on any of these conflicts.
A written warning from Oppenheimer’s counsel
On April 21, 2025 — one week before the April 28 pre-hearing conference — Oppenheimer’s counsel emailed Jordan Tepper Weiner directly:
The April 21, 2025 Email
“It is clear you are costing your mother money, needlessly. I share this with you not as counsel for Oppenheimer, but to try to mitigate further costs to her.”
“Now, as counsel to Oppenheimer, I am extremely confident in our defenses, and have done this long enough that it is clear to me you have alienated the Chairman. While I am sure he will do his best to remain impartial, you can best decide if your strategy has been helpful or hurtful.”
— John McGuire, Oppenheimer. Ex. 10.
The claimant who was removed
Jordan Tepper Weiner filed the case with his mother, and the award lists them both as Claimants. Oppenheimer’s own beneficiary form names him a 50% contingent beneficiary on the accounts (Ex. 17-C at 3).
After an unrecorded March 14, 2025 conference, the arbitrator wrote that he had “agreed that he was not a proper complainant” (Ex. 17-A at 2). He moved the next day to be reinstated, explaining the position had “resulted in legal consequences that were unknown to [him] at the time” (Ex. 17-B). On April 10, 2025 he filed a supplement attaching Oppenheimer’s own beneficiary form. The arbitrator denied reinstatement the same day, without stated reasons (Ex. 3 at 3).
Acknowledged, and Still Excluded
At the April 28, 2025 conference, Jordan Tepper Weiner told the arbitrator the breach “does directly affect my future pocketbook.”
The arbitrator: “Oh, I’m sure it does. I’m sure it does.” Moments later: “Although you are also sort of listed as a party somehow.” (4/28/25 Tr. 23:3–21)
One rule for the family, another for Oppenheimer
The Same Hearing, Two Standards
When the family offered evidence: a one-minute video of Lawrence Weiner dated February 2, 2021 — three weeks after he signed the fee letter — was excluded because it “was never produced.” (5/7/25 Tr. 70:1–72:19)
When the family raised Oppenheimer’s non-production: “I would suggest we stick to the substance of the dispute.” (5/7/25 Tr. 119:9–14)
The award
On May 23, 2025, the award issued: “Claimants’ claims are denied in their entirety.” It contains no finding on the pre-signature charges, the medical evidence, the conflicting testimony, or the missing discovery. As ¶ 33(D) of Oppenheimer’s agreement permits, it gives no reasons. The family was assessed a share of the forum fees.
Oppenheimer wrote the arbitration clause. It chose the forum. Inside that forum, the fee records were never produced, and the award was never explained.
The Documents
Each document below is a federal court exhibit, Case No. 1:25-cv-09985.
Client Agreement — Arbitration Clause ¶ 33
With Oppenheimer’s Amended Statement of Answer, Dec. 23, 2024. Ex. 8 · 16 pp.
Proves: the arbitration clause (¶ 33); “mid-2022”; “in person and in writing.”
Statement of Answer (“mid-2022”)
Dec. 18, 2024. Ex. 18
Proves: the first “mid-2022” pleading.
Oppenheimer Opposition to Written Medical Report
Feb. 21, 2025. Ex. 16 · 2 pp.
Proves: why the physician had to testify live: Oppenheimer asked that her report be precluded “from any consideration.”
Motion for Sanctions and Enhanced Oversight of Discovery
Filed Mar. 3, 2025. Ex. 15-A
Proves: quotes Oppenheimer’s “will not be producing any information without this agreement.”
Arbitrator’s Order — 30 MB agreement; confidentiality demand denied
Mar. 14, 2025. Ex. 5 · 3 pp.
Proves: Oppenheimer “voluntarily agreed” to 30 MB files; confidentiality demand denied; ordered to produce all account documents.
Email to Oppenheimer, copying FINRA — “financials in an Excel Spreadsheet”
Mar. 26, 2025. Ex. 15-B
Proves: the Excel financials and 30 MB files promised and still not delivered.
Arbitrator’s Order on Claimant Status
Mar. 26, 2025. Ex. 17-A
Proves: the “not a proper complainant” ruling.
Motion to Be Recognized as Claimant
Mar. 27, 2025. Ex. 17-B
Proves: the prompt request to be reinstated.
Motion to Produce Critical Discovery — “log files not financial statements”
Apr. 2, 2025. Ex. 6 · 2 pp.
Proves: “Sent log files not financial statements”; requested the fee spreadsheets and the signed “bonus” letter.
Oppenheimer Response — “never agreed to produce such documents in excel”
Apr. 10, 2025. Ex. 15-C · 2 pp.
Proves: “Oppenheimer never agreed to produce such documents in excel”; admits a 60 MB file.
Claimant’s Reply on the Log-File Substitution
Apr. 10, 2025. Ex. 15-D
Proves: the log file had “NO financial data whatsoever.”
Supplemental Filing with Oppenheimer Beneficiary Form (redacted)
Apr. 10, 2025. Ex. 17-C
Proves: 50% contingent beneficiary on Oppenheimer’s own form.
Arbitrator’s Order — non-compliance reserved for May 7
Apr. 10, 2025. Ex. 4
Proves: non-compliance reserved for “the May 7 hearing.”
The McGuire Email — “alienated the Chairman”
Apr. 21, 2025. Ex. 10 · 2 pp.
Proves: “Alienated the Chairman” and “costing your mother money” — Oppenheimer’s counsel, in writing.
Dr. Ami Desai — Medical Summary
Feb. 14, 2025. Ex. 9 · 4 pp.
Proves: “Significant impairment by Jan 2021.”
Certified Transcript (complete) — Pre-Hearing Conference
Apr. 28, 2025. Ex. 7 · 62 pp.
Proves: “Total lunacy”; oversized files; “Oh, I’m sure it does.”
Key passages
- 4/28/25 Tr. 23:3–21 — “Oh, I’m sure it does.”
- 4/28/25 Tr. 37:22–38:14 — “It is total lunacy.”
- 4/28/25 Tr. 39:2–6 — files “bigger than 30 megabytes”
Certified Transcript (complete) — Evidentiary Hearing
May 7, 2025. Ex. 1 · 203 pp.
Proves: sworn testimony: the bonus, the denial, the medical witnesses, “stick to the substance,” “hard stop.”
Key passages
- 5/7/25 Tr. 22:12–15; 99:1–5; 73:13–17 — the bonus statement
- 5/7/25 Tr. 58:11–14 — Nick Gorsline’s testimony
- 5/7/25 Tr. 70:1–72:19 — video excluded as “never produced”
- 5/7/25 Tr. 90:19–91:12 — no note or email of disclosure
- 5/7/25 Tr. 119:1–14 — “stick to the substance of the dispute”
- 5/7/25 Tr. 145:6–20 — login log offered by Oppenheimer
- 5/7/25 Tr. 175:5–8 — Mr. Hymen’s denial
- 5/7/25 Tr. 177:5–14 — “no subsequent conversations”
- 5/7/25 Tr. 198:1–2 — “January 2021”
- 5/7/25 Tr. 202:22–203:1 — “That is the hard stop.”
The FINRA Award
May 23, 2025. Ex. 3 · 5 pp.
Proves: zero, with no reasons; sanctions motion denied only in the award; reinstatement denied.