Our firm is investigating UBS Financial Services broker and financial advisor Sonia Maria Attkiss (CRD# 2936806) of New York, New York and Westport, Connecticut for potential investment-related misconduct, including unsuitable options overlay recommendations, misrepresentation, and failure to follow client instructions.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to FINRA BrokerCheck, Sonia Maria Attkiss has worked in the securities industry since the late 1990s.
She is currently registered as a General Securities Representative and investment adviser representative with UBS Financial Services Inc. (CRD# 8174), where she has been employed since November 20, 2015. She is registered in 53 U.S. states and territories and with 10 self-regulatory organizations, and works out of UBS offices at 299 Park Avenue in New York, New York and in Westport, Connecticut.
Before joining UBS Financial Services Inc., Ms. Attkiss was registered with:
- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (CRD# 816) in New York, New York from January 2003 through December 2015.
- Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation (CRD# 7560) in Jersey City and New York, New York from September 1997 through January 2003.
In addition to her brokerage registrations, Ms. Attkiss has passed the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE), the Series 7 General Securities Representative Examination, and the Series 66 Uniform Combined State Law Examination.
Sonia Maria Attkiss Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck discloses multiple customer disputes involving Sonia Maria Attkiss, including an arbitration award and several settled options overlay cases. In total, six customer disputes are reported on her record, all relating to sales-practice allegations such as fraud, misrepresentation, unsuitability, failure to execute instructions, and other alleged violations.
While some disputes were resolved through settlements without any individual contribution by Ms. Attkiss and without admissions of wrongdoing, the volume and nature of these disclosures raise serious questions about the suitability of certain recommendations and the handling of customer accounts, particularly involving an options overlay strategy implemented in a wrap-fee program.
1. Options Overlay Strategy Arbitration – Alleged Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Unsuitability
One customer dispute culminated in a FINRA arbitration award against UBS Financial Services Inc. (Case No. 20-00941). In that matter, customers alleged that Ms. Attkiss and her member firm engaged in:
- Fraud
- Misrepresentation
- Unsuitability / unsuitable product
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Negligence
- Breach of contract
The dispute centered on options investments, with customers claiming more than $730,631.25 in damages. A FINRA arbitration panel later ordered UBS Financial Services Inc. to pay the claimants $40,000.00 in compensatory damages plus $300.00 in reimbursement of non-refundable filing fees.
From the broker-reported version of the same case, the timeframe of the disputed activity was 2017–2019, and the product involved was an in-house options overlay strategy offered within a wrap-fee program. The complaint alleged unsuitability and misrepresentation, claimed damages of $500,000, and ultimately settled for $40,300.00, with no individual contribution reported by Ms. Attkiss.
Bullet-point summary of this disclosure:
- Action: Customer-initiated arbitration and complaint alleging fraud, misrepresentation, unsuitability, unsuitable product, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract in an options overlay strategy.
- Product: Options / in-house wrap-fee options overlay strategy.
- Timeframe: Approximately 2017–2019.
- Alleged damages: $500,000 to $730,631.25 (depending on reporting source).
- Disposition: FINRA arbitration award ordering UBS to pay $40,000 plus $300 costs; firm-reported settlement of $40,300 with $0 individual contribution by Ms. Attkiss.
2. 2025 Equity Complaint – Alleged Failure to Execute Trades as Instructed
BrokerCheck also reports a 2025 customer complaint involving alleged failures to execute equity trades as instructed. According to UBS’s disclosure, the client alleged that Ms. Attkiss “did not execute trades as instructed” between March 26, 2025 and June 18, 2025 in a listed equity account.
The firm coded the complaint as oral only (no written component), with no specific dollar amount claimed in the initial damages field. The matter was later marked as “settled” on August 18, 2025 for $46,733.93, with no individual contribution reported by Ms. Attkiss.
Bullet-point summary of this disclosure:
- Action: Customer complaint alleging failure to execute trades as instructed.
- Product: Listed equity securities.
- Timeframe: March 26, 2025 – June 18, 2025.
- Alleged damages: No specific dollar figure claimed; client “made no claim for damages” in the damages field.
- Disposition: Settled on August 18, 2025 for $46,733.93; $0 individual contribution reported.
This type of allegation often overlaps with issues described as unauthorized trading or failure to follow client instructions, which can form the basis of a claim for recovery in a FINRA arbitration. Investors who experience similar issues may benefit from consulting a lawyer familiar with unauthorized trading and related misconduct claims.
3. Multiple Options Overlay Settlements (2016–2024)
In addition to the arbitration award case, BrokerCheck lists three settled FINRA arbitrations and one additional settled customer complaint involving an in-house options overlay strategy that was recommended and held between 2016 and April 2023.
Across these disclosures, customers alleged that Ms. Attkiss and UBS Financial Services Inc. recommended an options overlay strategy that was unsuitable and misrepresented, exposing clients to inappropriate risk. The reported timeframes and settlement amounts include:
- 2016–April 2023 Options Overlay Case
- Allegations: Unsuitability and misrepresentation regarding an in-house wrap-fee options overlay strategy.
- Alleged damages: Approximately $525,000.
- Forum: FINRA Arbitration (Case No. 23-01788).
- Disposition: Settled on December 12, 2024 for $225,000.00, with $0 individual contribution reported.
- 2018–2019 Options Overlay Case
- Allegations: Unsuitability and misrepresentation in options overlay recommendations and holdings.
- Alleged damages: $100,000–$500,000 (disclosed as a range).
- Forum: FINRA Arbitration (Case No. 23-02137).
- Disposition: Settled on May 3, 2024 for $180,000.00, with no individual contribution reported.
- January 2018–Present Options Overlay Case
- Allegations: Unsuitability and misrepresentation with respect to an in-house options overlay strategy.
- Alleged damages: $500,000–$1,000,000 (range disclosed).
- Forum: FINRA Arbitration (Case No. 24-00504).
- Disposition: Settled on May 16, 2025 for $400,000.00, with $0 individual contribution reported.
Bullet-point summary of these options overlay disclosures:
- Action: Multiple customer-initiated arbitrations and complaints focusing on an in-house options overlay strategy.
- Products: Options overlay strategy implemented in a wrap-fee account.
- Timeframes:
- 2016–April 2023
- 2018–2019
- January 2018–present (as alleged in filings)
- Alleged damages: Ranged from $100,000 up to more than $1,000,000, depending on the dispute.
- Disposition: All three matters settled for a combined total of hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $225,000 + $180,000 + $400,000) paid by UBS Financial Services Inc., with no individual contribution disclosed for Ms. Attkiss.
Claims involving complex strategies such as options overlays frequently raise suitability concerns when the strategy does not match a client’s risk tolerance, investment objectives, or capacity to sustain losses, and they may give rise to unsuitable investment claims. Investors who suffered losses in such strategies may have potential claims for recovery through FINRA arbitration and unsuitable investment actions.
BrokerCheck reports one additional options overlay-related arbitration filed in July 2020 (FINRA Case No. 20-02109) alleging unsuitability and misrepresentation starting in 2016, with claimed damages between $500,000 and $1,000,000. That matter was ultimately resolved with an arbitration award in favor of respondents/defendants and was closed with no payment to the customer.
Bullet-point summary of this disclosure:
- Action: Customer arbitration alleging unsuitability and misrepresentation in an in-house options overlay strategy.
- Product: In-house wrap-fee options overlay strategy.
- Timeframe: Starting in 2016.
- Alleged damages: $500,000–$1,000,000.
- Disposition: Arbitration award / judgment for respondents; no settlement amount reported.
To obtain a copy of Sonia Maria Attkiss’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
In the context of the options overlay complaints, FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) requires that a broker have a reasonable basis to believe that any recommended security or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on that customer’s investment profile, including age, financial situation, risk tolerance, investment objectives, and liquidity needs.
When an advisor recommends a leveraged, options-based overlay strategy inside a wrap-fee account, Rule 2111 expects the broker to understand the product’s risks and to match those risks to clients who are truly able and willing to bear them. If a broker steers conservative or income-oriented investors into a complex, volatility-dependent options overlay without adequately evaluating their risk tolerance or explaining the potential downside, arbitrators can conclude that the recommendations violated the customer-specific suitability and reasonable-basis suitability components of Rule 2111. In the disputes involving Ms. Attkiss, repeated allegations that the options overlay was unsuitable for various clients suggest that arbitrators and regulators may closely examine whether her recommendations met these suitability obligations.
In addition, FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade) functions as a broad ethical rule that requires members and their associated persons to conduct business with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.
Even when specific suitability or disclosure rules are not clearly violated, Rule 2010 can be invoked when a broker’s conduct—such as ignoring clear liquidation instructions, failing to execute client-directed trades in a timely manner, or downplaying the risks of a complex strategy—falls below the ethical standards expected in the securities industry. In a situation where a customer alleges the advisor “did not execute trades as instructed,” arbitrators may view the failure to carry out reasonable, documented client directions as inconsistent with the fair-dealing and integrity obligations codified in Rule 2010, particularly if the delay or inaction worsened the client’s losses.
Finally, allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in the options overlay disputes may come under FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices), which prohibits member firms and associated persons from effecting any transaction, or inducing the purchase or sale of any security, “by means of any manipulative, deceptive or other fraudulent device or contrivance.”
If an advisor allegedly highlighted the upside of an options overlay strategy while minimizing or failing to disclose its downside risks—such as the potential for large losses during periods of market volatility—such conduct may be characterized as deceptive. When misrepresentations or omissions about a complex strategy’s risk profile cause investors to approve transactions they would otherwise have rejected, FINRA and arbitration panels may evaluate whether the conduct violated Rule 2020 in conjunction with the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
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.
