CFP Board is requesting public comment on proposed changes to its Fitness Standards, Procedural Rules and Sanction Guidelines. This proposal improves CFP Board’s existing process for evaluating the ethical fitness of CFP^® certificants and candidates for CFP^® certification.

As part of the revision process, CFP Board actively seeks input from various stakeholders, including practitioners, candidates, firms, membership organizations and the public. The deadline to submit comments is Thursday, April 30, 2026.

“The integrity of CFP^® certification is the foundation of CFP Board’s mission, and it depends on fair and transparent standards for candidates and CFP^® professionals,” said CEO K. Dane Snowden. “We invite stakeholders to share their perspectives as we work to safeguard consumers and maintain a trusted, clear path to earning and sustaining CFP^® certification.”

Proposed Changes to the Fitness Standards

CFP Board proposes to modify the Fitness Standards so that a candidate with a certain kind of misdemeanor conviction must file a Fitness Petition only when CFP Board’s Enforcement Counsel (the attorney who investigates potential misconduct) seeks a public sanction. A public sanction can take the form of a Public Notice, which would alert the public to the candidate’s past misconduct, or a temporary or permanent bar prohibiting the candidate from applying for CFP^® certification. In conducting that evaluation, Enforcement Counsel would rely on professional judgment, the relevant Sanction Guidelines (including mitigating and aggravating factors), and prior Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (DEC) decisions. (The DEC is the peer review body that makes ethics determinations.)

A Fitness Petition involves a more formal process in which the DEC conducts a hearing and issues a written decision, and a vast majority of candidates with these misdemeanor convictions who filed a Petition were granted certification with a private caution. Often, conduct requiring a candidate to file a Petition for Fitness (such as misbehavior during college) occurred many years ago or involves an episode of youthful indiscretion unlikely to have a material bearing on their current ethical fitness. With this change, the DEC, the DEC’s legal counsel and Enforcement Counsel would not need to adjudicate Fitness Petitions where the outcome would be a private caution, lowering the volume of Fitness Petitions to a manageable level and enabling the DEC to focus on matters that involve more egregious conduct.

CFP Board also would adopt a new section “D” in the Fitness Standards that consolidates all categories of conduct where a candidate may be directed to file a Fitness Petition, depending on Enforcement Counsel’s evaluation. Section “C” would continue to identify those categories of conduct where a candidate must file a Fitness Petition.

Review a redlined copy of the proposed changes to the Fitness Standards >

Proposed Changes to Procedural Rules

CFP Board proposes to modify the Procedural Rules so that when a candidate has a “Relevant Misdemeanor” (a defined term) and both the candidate and Enforcement Counsel agree that CFP Board should grant the candidate’s Fitness Petition with a Public Notice, Enforcement Counsel would have the discretion to file a joint motion for an order granting the Petition with a Public Notice. In that circumstance, DEC Counsel would grant the motion and the DEC would not hear the Fitness Petition. This language builds upon the approach that CFP Board adopted last year to improve the process for resolving Petitions that involve single bankruptcies and multiple misdemeanor convictions involving a second (or more) alcohol and/or drug-related offense.

As noted above, new section “D” in the Fitness Standards would consolidate all categories of conduct where a candidate may be directed to file a Fitness Petition, depending on Enforcement Counsel’s evaluation. Thus, CFP Board would move to the Fitness Standards the language in Article 5.5 and 5.6 of the Procedural Rules that clarifies when a petition is required based on recency of a bankruptcy or multiple alcohol‑ or drug‑related offenses.

CFP Board also proposes to modify Article 17.1 of the Procedural Rules to enable the Enforcement Team to provide a CFP^® professional’s firm with updates on the status of investigations involving their professionals. This is in response to requests from several firms, through their trade association the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, that CFP Board provide notice to the CFP^® professional’s firm when a CFP^® professional is under investigation. In addition, CFP Board is proposing a technical revision to clarify when a candidate for CFP^® certification who files a Fitness Petition may have their fee refunded. Finally, CFP Board is proposing changes that would require an individual seeking reinstatement after a suspension to demonstrate that they would be eligible for certification under the Fitness Standards if they were an applicant for CFP^® certification.

Review a redlined copy of the proposed changes to the Procedural Rules >

Proposed Revisions to the Sanction Guidelines

CFP Board proposes changes to the Sanction Guidelines to clarify that if a CFP^® professional engages in misconduct that would bar a candidate from obtaining CFP^® certification, then the DEC may not mitigate (lower) the sanction. The additions apply to three kinds of misconduct -- Lack of Integrity, Forgery Without Authorization and Fraud or Misrepresentation involving Professional Services – for which the sanction guideline is a revocation.

Review a redlined copy of the proposed changes to the Sanction Guidelines >

Together, the proposed updates to the Fitness Standards, Procedural Rules and Sanction Guidelines refine the standards that determine when a Fitness Petition is required, how Petitions are reviewed and how sanctions are applied. All proposed updates are designed to strengthen the efficiency and consistency of CFP Board’s enforcement and certification processes.

CFP Board welcomes all input on the proposed revisions. Comments can be submitted to CFP Board through an online form. CFP Board will post all comments on the CFP.net website with the commenter's name and the date submitted. The deadline for comments is Thursday, April 30, 2026.

CFP Board will review comments and determine what changes, if any, to make to the proposed revised Sanction Guidelines, Fitness Standards and Procedural Rules.

ABOUT CFP BOARD

CFP Board is the professional body for personal financial planners in the U.S. CFP Board consists of two affiliated organizations focused on advancing the financial planning profession for the public’s benefit. CFP Board of Standards sets and upholds standards for financial planning and administers the prestigious CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER^® certification — widely recognized by the public, advisors and firms as the standard for financial planners — so that the public has access to the benefits of competent and ethical financial planning. CFP^® certification is held by more than 107,000 people in the U.S. CFP Board Center for Financial Planning addresses diversity and workforce development challenges and conducts and publishes research that adds to the financial planning profession’s body of knowledge.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260331227241/en/

“The integrity of CFP® certification is the foundation of CFP Board’s mission, and it depends on fair and transparent standards for candidates and CFP® professionals,” said CEO K. Dane Snowden.