Subject: File No. SR-FINRA-2009-008
From: J. Pat Sadler, Esq.
Affiliation: Sadler Hovdesven, P.C.

April 9, 2009

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this long overdue rule change. As an attorney who concentrates his practice in the representation of public investors, I have had many a frustrating conversation with clients attempting to explain the inconsistencies in the CRD reporting system.

Imagine trying to explain to a lay person why a one sentence letter stating "Mr. X cheated me out of $20,000" is reportable, but a ten page Statement of Claim explaining in detail how Mr. X cheated me is not reportable if it only names Mr. X's firm as the actual respondent.

There are many reasons why a claimants' attorney chooses not to name a broker as an arbitration respondent, most of which have nothing to do with the broker's personal culpability, i.e. limiting the respondents' arbitrator strikes, limiting the nmber of defense counsel. etc.

I believe this change will go a long way toward enhancing the credibility of the public disclosure system.