Edelman-Mariner Legal Battle Intensifies
The legal fracas between Edelman Financial Engines and Mariner Wealth Advisors shows no sign of abating, as the rivals are pushing the judge to rule in their favor before trial while each tries to exclude expert testimony from the opposing side.
Last Friday, Mariner and Edelman filed oppositions to motions for summary judgment that each firm previously submitted. (In a summary judgment, a judge rules in favor of one party before a full trial.)
Edelman first sued Mariner in 2023, alleging it lured numerous advisors to break non-solicitation agreements and steal trade secrets, while Mariner responded that Edelman was using the lawsuit to send “a chilling public message” to “stifle fair competition.”
While much of Edelman’s opposition to Mariner’s summary judgment motion was placed under seal and is not publicly available, Mariner’s opposition to Edelman’s summary judgment attempt stressed that the firm didn’t instruct former Edelman advisors to copy client names.
Additionally, Mariner asserted that “while a client list can, under certain circumstances, constitute a trade secret, a ‘mere list’ of customers’ names does not constitute a trade secret.”
“A client list can only rise to the level of a protectable trade secret when the list contains something more than names and contact information,” Mariner argued, saying Edelman failed to name a single case in its arguments where “client names alone” were considered trade secrets.
Both firms also filed motions trying to stop their rivals from using expert testimony from witnesses. Mariner’s witness is Phil Waxelbaum, an industry consultant with previous stints at Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan and UBS, while David Bones, a forensic accountant at the risk consulting firm HKA, is testifying for Edelman.
As with numerous other court documents, some arguments and evidence for and against, including their testimonies, remain under seal, but in its September motion to exclude Bones’ testimony, Mariner attorneys argued his “opinions are inadmissible because they are neither grounded on sufficient facts or data, nor are they the product of reliable principles or methods.”
Meanwhile, Edelman argued that Waxelbaum’s argument that Mariner’s recruitment and onboarding practices were “consistent with industry standards” was “irrelevant,” and that just because Waxelbaum found Mariner’s practices “allegedly typical” didn’t make them legal.
“Moreover, if Mr. Waxelbaum is allowed to testify, it is highly likely that the jury will confuse what he deems to be the ‘industry standard’ for the legal standard, and may absolve Mariner of liability because their practices were purportedly ‘customary,’ regardless of whether they violated the law,” Edelman’s September motion read.
Earlier this year, Edelman accused Mariner CEO Marty Bicknell of personally trying to entice at least one Edelman advisor to switch firms. The firm argued that Bicknell called Edelman advisor Michael Horne in selling the switch; Horne resigned from Edelman in 2021.
According to a portion of a transcript for a deposition Bicknell gave in May that Edelman submitted as part of its brief opposing Mariner’s summary judgment motion, the Mariner CEO acknowledged speaking to Horne before he had been hired, though there are no details about what the conversation entailed.
Mariner declined to comment. An Edelman spokesperson said the firm was “deeply committed to putting out clients’ best interests first,” and that “every action we take is guided by our unwavering duty to our clients,” though would not comment specifically on the case.
Post Comment