Angela Manning is a pioneer in financial planning. Her case was not one of right against wrong, but instead, who has the greatest right to a client – the dealer or the planner.
Basically, Manning was hired by AMP Financial Planning to join Arrive. She already had a large client book that she had built at PricewaterhouseCoopers when AMP made her an attractive offer, including a bonus if she stayed for a certain period of time.
The offer was too good to refuse and included Manning signing a restriction of trade clause that AMP prescribed. However, after the bonus term was served, Manning decided to leave and told her clients she was going. This was later judged as being an enticement to the clients – who were owned by AMP – to leave.
AMP is known in the industry to have one of the tightest restraint clauses in the business. (Although lawyers now believe it is too wide ranging). This is good business and helps the dealer group retain its planners and thus keep its recruitment costs down; costs that may eventually be reflected in charges to the clients.
However, it ignores a basic tenet of a service business. That is, the client is always right, and the client’s rights should be of the utmost concern.
No dealer group owns a client. No planner owns a client.
A client is free and independent and a planner should never forget the client’s business is given freely and the relationship must be worked on constantly if they are to retain the client.
Manning was judged to have enticed clients, which was against the AMP restrictions. AMP was awarded $45,000, not the $4.3 million it sought. AMP is appealing the result to make this an example to others. The result is likely to put off new planners joining AMP.
