--- title: "Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner" meta: "og:description": "The law and legal expert was allowed to testify that Defendants met the standard of care for a certified financial planner" "og:title": "Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The law and legal expert was allowed to testify that Defendants met the standard of care for a certified financial planner" --- # Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner Posted on July 31, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta This breach of contract action is brought by Plaintiff Allonzo Trier against his former financial advisor, Defendant Glen Wright, and Wright’s business, Defendant Worth Financial Advisory Group LLC. In brief, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and their fiduciary duties by steering Plaintiff away from a low, fixed-rate mortgage toward a variable-rate line of credit secured by Plaintiff’s brokerage account, resulting in significant financial loss to Plaintiff. On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff disclosed the reports of his standard-of-care expert, [Matt Muehlebach](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Matt-Muehlebach/1578018), and his damages expert, the accounting firm of Keegan Linscott. Defendants did not provide any expert disclosures on January 9, 2026. But on January 30—the rebuttal expert deadline—Defendants disclosed the reports of [Gerald Loftin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Gerald-Loftin/1578016) and [Michael E. Deeba](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Michael-Deeba/1578017). Defendants retained Loftin to rebut the opinions of Muehlebach and Deeba to rebut the opinions of Keegan Linscott. Plaintiff argued that Loftin’s and Deeba’s reports were not timely disclosed. He also argued that neither is a proper rebuttal expert. ![Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T175244_408.webp) ## **Law And Legal Expert Witness** [Gerald Loftin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Gerald-Loftin/1578016) holds a Juris Doctorate (JD) from the Massachusetts School of Law obtained in 2013 and a Bachelor of Science in Finance Degree from Northeastern University obtained in 1993. He is a practicing Certified Financial Planner professional. Loftin has appeared as a commentator on CNBC, providing expert insights on investment opportunities in healthcare and managing market and client expectations. [Discover more cases with Gerald Loftin as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578016&pId=3). ## **Accounting Expert Witness** [Michael Elmer Deeba](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Michael-Deeba/1578017) is a certified public accountant ("CPA"), Certified in Financial Forensics by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("CFF"), certified insolvency and restructuring advisor ("CIRA") and Certified Turnaround Professional ("CTP"). He regularly examines assets, liabilities, operations, solvency, and cash flows to assess and estimate the claims, losses, and damages related to losses, including commercial and individual damage claims of the nature alleged in the Litigation. [Want to know more about the challenges Michael Deeba has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578017&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### A. Loftin and Deeba are proper rebuttal experts #### _1. Loftin_ Plaintiff’s standard-of-care expert, Matt Muehlebach, opined that Defendants fell below the standard of care applicable to professional financial advisors when they steered Plaintiff away from a fixed-rate mortgage. In his report, Loftin described the standard of care for a certified financial planner; points out uncertainties in Muehlebach’s assumption that Plaintiff would have qualified for a mortgage; discusses information not considered by Muehlebach (i.e., notes created during or after meetings with Plaintiff and his mother reflecting Defendants’ advice that Plaintiff should not purchase a home while unemployed and that Plaintiff needed to curtail his spending); and opined, “contrary to the opinion of” Muehlebach, that Defendants met the standard of care. Plaintiff argued that “Loftin offers initial opinions on the core issues of whether Defendants breached their standard of care and damages,” and that because such “opinions go to anticipated and disputed elements of Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants were required to disclose him as an initial expert.” The question is whether Loftin’s testimony “is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by” Muehlebach. The answer is yes: Muehlebach opined that Defendants fell below the standard of care for a professional financial advisor; Loftin challenges a key assumption underlying Muehlebach’s opinion—that Plaintiff qualified for a 3% mortgage—and opined that Defendants met the standard of care. Plaintiff also argued, in a conclusory manner, that Loftin’s opinions “are based on Wright’s internal self-serving notes—a conduit for hearsay.” But experts may rely on hearsay so long as the hearsay is of the type that an expert would normally and reasonably rely on. Plaintiff did not suggest that an expert would not rely on notes prepared by a financial advisor during or following a financial planning meeting. And considering that the notes reflect Defendants’ financial advice to Plaintiff—the core issue of this case—it is hard to see why such notes would not be relevant to an expert’s analysis. Plaintiff also said that Loftin (and Deeba) “dodge” the testimony of Ingrid Quinn, a mortgage officer who discussed the possibility of a mortgage with Plaintiff’s mother. Quinn testified that she was “confident” Plaintiff would have qualified for a mortgage. Plainly, an expert opinion is not inadmissible merely because the opposing party thinks the expert did not give enough weight to information favorable to the opposing party. The adequacy of an expert’s weighing of competing evidence goes to the weight of the opinion, not its admissibility. Further, Loftin’s report indicated that Quinn was not as confident as Plaintiff says, as she testified that her “understanding was limited to preliminary discussions,” and that she “needed an application to properly evaluate the situation and identify any additional documentation requirements.” In his reply, Plaintiff asserted that because Loftin did not read the depositions of Plaintiff or his mother, Loftin “does not contradict the evidence why the [variable-rate line of credit] was unreasonable.” But the “evidence” referred to in [Rule 26](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26) is Muehlebach’s report itself, not the information he considered in making the report. Loftin responds to and rebuts Muehlebach’s report by challenging his assumptions and by opining, based on notes made at or near the time of the events giving rise to this case, that “contrary to the opinion of Plaintiff’s expert, Glen Wright adhered to the Standard of Care as a Certified Financial Planner practitioner in all aspects of the client-advisor relationship with Allonzo Trier.” #### _2. Deeba_ Plaintiff’s damages expert conducted a comparative financial analysis and opined that Plaintiff lost around $143,000 by going with the line of credit instead of a mortgage. In his report, Deeba describes accounting standards applicable to economic damages calculations, which require that calculations be based on reliable or reasonably certain information; opined that a key assumption of the Plaintiff's damages expert—that Plaintiff would have qualified for a fixed-rate mortgage—rests on numerous unknowns testified to by Quinn during her deposition; and further opines that other assumptions (e.g., that the mortgage would have been at 3.2%) lack documentation or support. Plaintiff argued that Deeba’s testimony is not proper rebuttal because he does not “rebut how Plaintiff’s expert calculated damages” but rather challenges assumptions made by Plaintiff’s expert. Plaintiff also accused Deeba of making a legal argument by applying a “reasonable certainty” standard. But Deeba explains that he is applying accepted accounting standards, including the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ “reasonable certainty” standard, to opine that the Plaintiff's expert's damages opinions are not based on reliable information. This is proper rebuttal testimony. Plaintiff further accused Deeba of making a credibility determination as to Quinn. But Deeba merely recites Quinn’s testimony, which indeed reflects uncertainty about the likelihood of Plaintiff obtaining a 3.2% mortgage. For instance, while Plaintiff makes much of Quinn’s testimony that she was “confident” Plaintiff would qualify, she also testified that she and Plaintiff’s mother “didn’t get that far into the process,” that her confidence was based solely on information provided by Plaintiff’s mother, that she had not corroborated that information, and that she needed a mortgage application to see what was being presented. Next, Plaintiff argued that Deeba’s testimony runs afoul of [_Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures_, 327 U.S. 251 (1946)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/327/251/). There, the Supreme Court held that when the Plaintiff establishes that the Defendant’s wrongful conduct caused injury, the defendant cannot escape liability merely because its wrongful conduct has made the precise amount of damages difficult to prove. That said, the jury still “may not render a verdict based on speculation or guesswork. But the jury may make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and render its verdict accordingly.” Plaintiff argued that because Defendants were the reason he did not pursue a mortgage, they should be “estopped” under _Bigelow_ from relying on any uncertainty associated with the mortgage process. This argument reflects a misunderstanding of what Bigelow actually decided. That case held that a wrongdoer may not escape liability where its own misconduct has made the amount of damages difficult to prove. While it relieves the Plaintiff of the burden of proving damages with precision, it does not relieve him of his burden to present evidence sufficient to permit “a just and reasonable estimate” of damages. A rebuttal expert who opines that the Plaintiff’s damages model is not reasonably certain is not contradicting _Bigelow_; rather, the expert is disputing whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the standard that _Bigelow_ itself requires. Deeba’s opinion, if accepted, would assist the jury in determining whether Plaintiff has produced the type of evidence from which “a just and reasonable estimate” can be made. Plaintiff’s view of Bigelow would effectively insulate his expert from legitimate methodological criticism. Nothing in Bigelow supports that result. In summary, the Court found that Loftin’s and Deeba’s testimony are proper rebuttal testimony. ### B. Defendant’s rebuttal expert disclosures were timely. Plaintiff argued that Defendants were required to serve their rebuttal expert reports on January 9. The scheduling order set three expert deadlines: one on November 21, 2025, for “Plaintiff’s initial expert disclosures” on whatever issues he deemed appropriate; one on January 9, 2026, for “Defendants’ initial expert disclosures” on whatever issues they deemed appropriate; and one on January 30 for either party to disclose “rebuttal” expert testimony challenging the other side’s “initial” experts. So, Defendants are correct that their rebuttal expert disclosures were due on January 30. Plaintiff asserted repeatedly that he has the exclusive “right of rebuttal” in expert discovery. But he offers no authority importing trial-order concepts into [Rule 26](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26), and Rule 26 is party-neutral. Regardless, the rule stated that disclosures must be made “at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” Plaintiff obviously disagreed with the framework set by the Court, but that framework is clear. Plaintiff simply misunderstood it. Rebuttal expert disclosures were due on January 30. As the Court found that Loftin and Deeba are proper rebuttal experts, Defendants’ disclosure of them on January 30 was timely. ## **Held** The Court denied****Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Gerald Loftin’s and Michael Deeba’s testimony. ## **Key Takeaway** Rebuttal expert testimony must be intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by an opposing party’s expert. ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Trier V. Wright | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 4:25cv55 | | Court Name: | United States District Court for the District of Arizona | | Order Date: | July 30, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T200905_3121.webp) [**Emergency Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Public Safety Communications**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner/emergency-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-public-safety-communications)![Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_31T175244_408.webp) [**Law And Legal Expert Allowed to Opine on the Standard of Care for a Certified Financial Planner**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner)![Aviation Maintenance Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Agency Relationship ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_30T195621_2651.webp) [**Aviation Maintenance Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Agency Relationship **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner/aviation-maintenance-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-agency-relationship-)![Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_30T174321_361.webp) [**Insurance Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Insurer's Conduct**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner/insurance-expert-partly-allowed-to-opine-on-insurers-conduct)![Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T200732_639.webp) [**Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/law-and-legal-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-the-standard-of-care-for-a-certified-financial-planner/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure)