Facts: GI hired the firm after receiving a complaint from TDI referred by her former employer. The former employer conducted an investigation into GI’s and her supervisor’s activities while working as sale agents and processing incoming customer applications. It was discovered that GI was including a discount on several customer applications that reduced their quotes. Thereby signing on with their company. However, the discount was false and therefore fraudulent. IG admitted to the conduct and advised that her supervisor directed her to make the changes on the customer applications.
Outcome: GI hired firm prior to receiving a complaint from TDI. However, once TDI submitted a complaint notice to the firm, the firm responded to the allegations. The firm provided argument and evidence that GI was directed by her supervisor to include the changes to the application. Based on the change itself, the firm argued that GI had reason to believe the change was valid and not false. The firm also provided a witness statement that corroborated GI’s admissions and agreed with her statements that the change did not seem, on its face, to be false. The firm also provided mitigative evidence regarding GI’s admissions to her former employer and acknowledged that she was forthcoming and honest from the very beginning of the investigation. Again proving that she did not know her actions were wrong.
After reviewing the firm’s response and evidence provided, TDI dismissed the case with a warning and no public disciplinary action.