Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.702 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In recommending to a customer the purchase, sale, or exchange of a security, a broker-dealer, salesperson, investment adviser, or investment adviser representative must have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the customer upon the basis of the facts, if any, disclosed by the customer as to his or her other security holdings and as to his or her financial situation and needs.

(2) Before the execution of a transaction recommended to a noninstitutional customer, other than transactions with customers where investments are limited to money market mutual funds, a broker-dealer, salesperson, investment adviser, or investment adviser representative shall make reasonable efforts to obtain information concerning:

(a) The customer's financial status;

(b) The customer's tax status;

(d) Such other information used or considered to be reasonable by the broker-dealer, salesperson, investment adviser, or investment adviser representative in making recommendations to the customer.

[ 1994 c 256 s 26; 1993 c 470 s 2.]

Notes:

Findings—Construction—1994 c 256: See RCW 43.320.007.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2018 · leading case: Ives v. Ramsden, 174 P.3d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ives v. Ramsden, 174 P.3d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 15× “010, and (5) violation of the suitability rule contrary to RCW 21.20.702. The trial court found that Ramsden violated his fiduciary duties and duties of good faith and fair dealing, committed securities fraud, violated the CPA, and violated the suitability rule.”

Ives v. Ramsden, 142 Wash. App. 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “010, and (5) violation of the suitability rule contrary to RCW 21.20.702. The trial court found that Ramsden violated his fiduciary duties and duties of good faith and fair dealing, committed securities fraud, violated the CPA, and violated the suitability rule.”

Peter Graham, Et Ano., Resps v. Jeffery A. Mascio, Et Ano., Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “(1) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2)To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; or (3) To…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.