Browse Certification Practice Tests by Exam Family

LLQP Ethics Common Law Cheat Sheet

Review a compact LLQP Ethics Common Law cheat sheet for contract law, representative conduct, disclosure, conflicts, privacy, suitability, replacement, documentation, and escalation traps before Finance Prep practice.

Use this Ethics Common Law cheat sheet before a module set. The strongest answer usually protects the client record, stays within licensed authority, discloses and manages conflicts, and documents the decision before moving forward.

Open LLQP Ethics Common Law practice for the free diagnostic, topic pages, timed mocks, and the full Finance Prep practice bank.

Module snapshot

ItemEthics Common Law cue
ProgramLLQP
ModuleEthics and Professional Practice, common-law provinces
Common format cuescenario-based licensing questions on legal duties and representative conduct
Main practice behavioridentify the duty, disclosure, consent, documentation, or escalation step
Finance Prep statuslive practice available

Competency checklist

AreaWeightWhat to knowCommon trap
Contract law50%offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, insurable interest, contract changes, misrepresentationtreating a contract issue as a sales preference
Representative conduct50%conflicts, disclosure, privacy, suitability, replacement, compensation, complaints, documentationassuming disclosure alone fixes every conduct problem

Must-know distinctions

  • Disclosure versus consent: telling a client about a fact is not always enough to proceed.
  • Conflict identification versus conflict management: some conflicts require avoidance, restriction, escalation, or refusal.
  • Suitability versus affordability: a recommendation must fit the need and remain practical for the client.
  • Privacy request versus authorized use: sensitive client information must be handled for the permitted purpose.
  • Service issue versus complaint: allegations of harm or unfair treatment need formal handling.

Ethics decision workflow

Use this sequence when an answer choice looks convenient but the fact pattern raises a client-protection issue. The strongest answer usually fixes the control gap before any sale, replacement, or servicing action continues.

    flowchart LR
	  Facts["Client facts"] --> Duty["Duty or authority"]
	  Duty --> Risk["Conflict, privacy, suitability, or complaint risk"]
	  Risk --> Control["Disclosure, consent, documentation, or escalation"]
	  Control --> Action["Compliant next action"]

What changed the answer?

Use this table after a missed Ethics Common Law item to decide what to drill next.

Controlling factorWhat to drill next
The representative lacked authority or stepped outside role limitslicensing scope, permitted activity, referral, documentation
The recommendation was not supported by client factsneeds analysis, suitability, affordability, disclosure of assumptions
A conflict or compensation issue was presentconflict identification, disclosure, management, escalation, refusal when needed
Sensitive information was handled incorrectlyprivacy purpose, consent, access, file handling, client communication
The client raised dissatisfaction or alleged harmservice issue versus complaint, complaint handling, documentation, escalation

Common traps

  • Selling because the client asked, even when suitability facts are missing.
  • Treating compensation as acceptable if it is not documented and managed.
  • Continuing after a replacement concern without a balanced comparison.
  • Giving legal, tax, or investment advice beyond permitted authority.
  • Fixing the file after the fact instead of documenting the real recommendation process.

Practice strategy

When you miss an ethics question, ask which control was missing: authority, disclosure, consent, suitability, privacy, documentation, or escalation. Drill the matching topic page until the compliant next step is obvious before returning to mixed practice.

Revised on Monday, May 25, 2026