Thomas Gary Justice (CRD# 2786145) is a registered broker with Emerson Equity LLC in San Mateo, California. Our firm is investigating whether investors who purchased non-traded REITs and other real estate investments through Mr. Justice suffered losses due to alleged unsuitability, over-concentration, and misrepresentation in violation of industry rules.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to a 2025 FINRA BrokerCheck report, Thomas Gary Justice has been registered in the securities industry since 1996 and is currently licensed with one FINRA member firm and in two U.S. states.
Mr. Justice is presently registered as a General Securities Representative with:
- Emerson Equity LLC (CRD# 130032), San Mateo, California – registered since November 19, 2020, working from the firm’s main office at 155 Bovet Road, Suite 725, San Mateo, CA 94402.
His prior registration and employment history includes:
- Conover Securities Corporation (CRD# 17129), Bellevue, Washington – registered representative from October 2009 to November 2020.
- Conover Capital Management (CRD# 118393), Bellevue, Washington – investment adviser representative during several periods between 2010 and 2020.
- Pacific West Securities, Inc. (CRD# 6390), Kirkland, Washington – broker from December 2008 to October 2009.
- Pacific West Financial Consultant Inc. (CRD# 108728), Renton, Washington – investment adviser representative in 2009.
- Private Consulting Group, Inc. (CRD# 45053), Portland, Oregon and Kirkland, Washington – broker from October 1999 to July 2000, and again from February 2001 to December 2008.
- NFP Securities, Inc. (CRD# 42046), Austin, Texas – broker from July 2000 to February 2001.
- Pacific Harbor Securities, Inc. (CRD# 8755), Highland, Utah – broker from March 1998 to November 1999.
- MANEQUITY, Inc. (CRD# 5249), Boston, Massachusetts – broker from September 1996 to March 1998.
- Mutual Service Corporation (CRD# 4806), Boston, Massachusetts – broker from April 1997 to December 1997.
In addition, Mr. Justice has disclosed a non-investment-related outside business activity with Sunriver Golf Club in St. George, Utah, where he works part-time in customer relations and as a first-tee starter.
Thomas Gary Justice Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck records show that Thomas Gary Justice has two customer dispute disclosures: one settled FINRA arbitration arising from non-traded REITs and other alternative investments, and one pending FINRA arbitration involving real estate securities, suitability, and breach of fiduciary duty.
2018 Non-Traded REIT and Alternative Investment Arbitration (Settled)
A customer initiated a FINRA arbitration against Mr. Justice and Conover Securities Corporation concerning non-traded REITs and other alternative investments:
- Employing firm when activities occurred: Conover Securities Corporation
- Product type: Direct investment – non-traded REITs and other alternative investments (classified as “Direct Investment–DPP & LP Interests”)
- Allegations: The claimants alleged that their purchases of non-traded REITs and other alternative investments between 2002 and 2014 were unsuitable, over-concentrated, and that the nature and risks of the investments were misrepresented. They further alleged that the conduct involved both Mr. Justice’s prior firm and his then-current firm.
- Alleged damages: $300,000.00, plus a request for punitive damages.
- Forum and case number: FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution Arbitration, Case No. 18-02513.
- Date notice/process served: July 11, 2018.
- Status/Disposition: The arbitration is no longer pending; it was settled on November 19, 2019.
- Total monetary compensation to customers: $80,000.00.
- Individual contribution by Justice: $0.00, indicating that none of the settlement amount was reported as paid directly by the broker.
Although settlements are not findings of liability, they often reflect significant customer losses and serious allegations about the suitability and disclosure of complex products such as non-traded REITs and other direct participation program (DPP) interests.
Summary of the 2019 Settlement Disclosure
- Action: Customer-initiated FINRA arbitration concerning non-traded REITs and alternative investments.
- Allegations: Unsuitability, over-concentration, and misrepresentation of the investments’ true nature and risks.
- Status: Final – settled (not on appeal).
- Disposition: Settled for $80,000 with no individual contribution by Mr. Justice.
2025 Real Estate Security Suitability and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Arbitration (Pending)
Mr. Justice also reports a pending FINRA arbitration filed while he has been associated with Emerson Equity LLC:
- Employing firm when activities occurred: Emerson Equity LLC.
- Product type: Real estate security.
- Allegations: The claimants allege suitability violations and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with their real estate security investments.
- Alleged damages: The form lists $0.00 in the “alleged damages” field, but explains that the claimants are seeking:
- General and compensatory damages “in an amount according to proof but not less than $1,000,000”,
- Lost opportunity costs,
- Rescission of the allegedly unsuitable investments,
- Costs of the proceedings,
- Punitive damages,
- Interest at the legal rate,
- Attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the arbitration panel.
- Complaint received: August 18, 2025.
- Arbitration forum: FINRA.
- Case number: 25-01701.
- Status: Complaint and arbitration pending; no award or settlement is reported as of the latest BrokerCheck update.
Because this matter remains pending, the allegations have not been proven or adjudicated, and Mr. Justice is presumed innocent of the claims unless and until a panel or court rules otherwise.
Summary of the 2025 Pending Arbitration Disclosure
- Action: FINRA arbitration filed in 2025.
- Allegations: Unsuitable recommendations and breach of fiduciary duty tied to real estate securities.
- Status: Pending.
- Requested relief: Compensatory damages of at least $1,000,000, plus rescission, costs, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees.
Overall Disclosure Profile
BrokerCheck currently reflects:
- One customer dispute – settled FINRA arbitration involving non-traded REITs and other alternative investments with alleged damages of $300,000 and a settlement of $80,000.
- One customer dispute – pending FINRA arbitration involving real estate securities, suitability, and breach of fiduciary duty with requested compensatory damages of at least $1,000,000, plus additional relief.
No regulatory actions, criminal matters, or other disclosure event types are currently reported for Mr. Justice in the BrokerCheck file excerpt reviewed.
Investors should understand that some of these matters are contested or were settled without an admission of wrongdoing, and the pending case may ultimately be resolved in Mr. Justice’s favor. Nevertheless, repeated allegations of unsuitable and over-concentrated non-traded REIT and real estate investments across different firms can be a red flag for potential stockbroker misconduct and grounds for a FINRA arbitration claim.
To obtain a copy of Thomas Gary Justice’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link: visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses.
FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) and Non-Traded REIT Recommendations
The allegations that Mr. Justice recommended non-traded REITs and other alternative investments that were unsuitable, over-concentrated, and misrepresented directly implicate FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability). Rule 2111 requires that a broker have a reasonable basis to believe a recommendation is suitable for the customer, based on information obtained through reasonable diligence about the customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, risk tolerance, investment objectives, time horizon, and liquidity needs.
In the context of non-traded REITs and other direct participation program interests, Rule 2111’s reasonable-basis and customer-specific suitability obligations mean that:
- The broker must understand the risks, illiquidity, fees, and distribution characteristics of the specific REITs and alternative investments.
- Recommendations must reflect the customer’s capacity to withstand illiquidity and potential loss, not simply the availability of high commissions or yield.
- Concentrations in non-traded REITs and similar products must be evaluated for overall portfolio impact—a portfolio disproportionately weighted toward illiquid real estate programs can violate quantitative suitability obligations when it exposes investors to excessive risk.
If the arbitration panel concludes that Mr. Justice recommended large allocations to non-traded REITs and other alternative investments without adequate consideration of the customers’ risk profiles or without explaining liquidity risks and fees, those findings could support a determination that he and his firms violated FINRA Rule 2111.
FINRA Rule 2310 (Direct Participation Programs and REIT Offerings)
The products at issue in the settled arbitration—non-traded REITs and other DPP-style investments—also raise issues under FINRA Rule 2310 (Direct Participation Programs), which governs public offerings of DPPs and certain real estate investment trusts.
Rule 2310 requires, among other things, that:
- Members participating in DPP and REIT offerings have reasonable grounds to believe that all material facts are adequately and accurately disclosed in offering documents, including conflicts of interest, fees, and risk factors.
- Brokers inform investors of liquidity and marketability limitations prior to executing purchases in a DPP or REIT.
- Suitability standards established by the program sponsor be clearly disclosed and applied when evaluating whether a given investor meets minimum income, net worth, and concentration thresholds.
In an arbitration involving non-traded REITs and similar programs, investors often argue that the broker and firm violated Rule 2310 by:
- Failing to investigate whether the sponsor’s disclosures were complete and accurate,
- Recommending programs whose suitability standards did not match the customer’s financial condition, or
- Downplaying or mischaracterizing the illiquidity and valuation risks of DPP and REIT investments.
Given the allegations that Mr. Justice’s clients were over-concentrated in non-traded REITs and that the nature of the investments was misrepresented across multiple years, a finding that Rule 2310’s due diligence, disclosure, and suitability expectations were not met could strengthen investors’ claims for damages.
FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade)
Finally, the pattern of alleged conduct—unsuitable and over-concentrated real estate programs, misrepresentation of investment characteristics, and an ongoing dispute alleging suitability violations and breach of fiduciary duty—may be evaluated under FINRA Rule 2010. Rule 2010 requires members, in the conduct of their business, to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.
Regulators and arbitration panels frequently invoke Rule 2010 when a broker’s actions—while not tied to a single, narrow rule—reflect a broader failure to treat customers fairly, such as:
- Placing a broker’s or firm’s financial interests (e.g., commissions from non-traded REITs and alternative products) ahead of the customer’s best interests,
- Ignoring red flags that an account was overly concentrated in speculative or illiquid securities, or
- Allowing misleading impressions about risk, liquidity, or income to persist without correction.
If an arbitration panel were to find that Mr. Justice knowingly recommended high-commission real estate programs without candidly disclosing their risks or without regard to concentration constraints, such findings could be characterized as inconsistent with the ethical standards required by Rule 2010 and could support an award of damages in favor of investors.
For over 45 years, The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. has represented investors nationwide in FINRA arbitration and securities fraud cases involving non-traded REITs, DPPs, and other complex investments. The firm’s investment fraud lawyer team has recovered substantial sums for clients whose brokers recommended unsuitable or misrepresented real estate and alternative investment products.
The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A. is a nationally recognized securities law firm representing investors in FINRA arbitration and securities fraud cases on a contingency fee basis. Robert Wayne Pearce, the founding attorney, has more than 45 years of experience recovering millions for victims of broker misconduct and investment fraud. He previously defended major brokerage firms and now uses that insight to protect investors nationwide. To discuss your case directly with Mr. Pearce, call (800) 732-2889 or email pearce@rwpearce.com for a free consultation.
Rate this Post
Loading...