Updated Procedural Rules, Effective May 23, 2025

On May 15, 2025, CFP Board announced the adoption of revised Procedural Rules, which will take effect on May 23, 2025. CFP Board upholds its Fitness Standards through the peer-review process set forth in the Procedural Rules. The new rules improve CFP Board’s existing process for evaluating the ethical fitness of candidates for CFP® certification and former CFP® professionals who had a single bankruptcy or multiple misdemeanor convictions involving an alcohol and/or drug-related offense.

Background

CFP Board requires an applicant to demonstrate ethical fitness for CFP® certification. In assessing ethical fitness, CFP Board evaluates information that may reveal an applicant’s prior misconduct. CFP Board Enforcement Counsel has authority to determine whether an applicant has engaged in (a) conduct that presents an absolute bar to certification, (b) conduct that renders an applicant currently ineligible for certification or (c) conduct that requires the applicant to file a “Petition for Fitness” asking the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) to issue an order finding ethical fitness for certification. 

The new rules modify Article 5 of the Procedural Rules to provide an expedited mechanism for assessing the fitness of candidates with a single bankruptcy filing and multiple misdemeanor convictions involving a second (or more) alcohol and/or drug-related offense that occurred some time ago. A candidate who had a single bankruptcy in the past (but no longer is demonstrating an inability to manage their financial affairs) may attain CFP® certification with a Caution or a Public Notice, depending on how long ago the bankruptcy occurred and whether the individual was providing professional services at the time of the bankruptcy. Similarly, a candidate with multiple misdemeanor convictions involving an alcohol and/or drug-related offense may attain CFP® certification with a Caution if the most recent alcohol and/or drug-related offense was seven or more years ago. 

The revisions result in outcomes that are similar to what resulted under CFP Board’s previous practices. Consequently, the adoption of the revised Procedural Rules maintains the integrity of CFP® certification while reducing the volume of cases that the Commission will be required to handle.

Public Comments

CFP Board released proposed revisions to the Procedural Rules for public comment on March 26, 2025, for 30 days until April 25, 2025. CFP Board received 180 comments that fell into six general categories:

1. Comments supporting or suggesting a shorter or longer passage of time for the provisions to take effect. In most circumstances, the commenters did not offer a reason for the proposed modification. The timeline set forth in the proposal accounts for (a) how the “Passage of Time” mitigating factor should apply in these circumstances, and (b) the volume of cases that the proposal would help manage.
2. Comments raising issues that do not directly relate to the expedited mechanism being considered in the proposal. For example, some commenters offered that a single bankruptcy or an alcohol or drug related misdemeanor should disqualify an applicant from obtaining CFP® certification, while others offered that these events should have no consequence to an applicant’s certification (or that CFP Board should offer a mechanism in the Procedural Rules for removing any resulting sanction after a period). These comments more directly concern the Sanction Guidelines (and, by incorporation, the Fitness Standards).
3. Comments opposing (a) the issuance of a sanction where an applicant has declared bankruptcy due to factors that do not reflect an inability to manage their financial affairs (such as due to an unexpected medical debt that insurance does not cover), and (b) a requirement that an applicant accept the expedited mechanism for resolving fitness. Neither of these circumstances arise under the proposal. The Code and Standards provides that there is no violation if the individual demonstrates that the bankruptcy does not reflect an inability to manage their finances. Moreover, the proposal provides a voluntary mechanism that applies only if the applicant and Enforcement Counsel agree. An applicant remains free to request a hearing and demonstrate that there was no misconduct. 
4. Comments objecting to CFP Board waiving the hearing fee when an applicant pursues this expedited mechanism. The proposal includes a hearing fee waiver because if the applicant utilizes the expedited mechanism, then there will be no hearing. In addition, the expedited mechanism appropriately lessens the burdens on staff and the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission, such that applicants should be encouraged to take advantage of the fee waiver. 
5. Comments sought explicit requirements that would limit Enforcement Counsel’s discretion. In appropriate circumstances, Enforcement Counsel will exercise their discretion and (a) require an applicant to submit additional documentation concerning their rehabilitation or (b) not agree to the expedited mechanism if the number of drug or alcohol-related offenses warrants the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission’s review. Enforcement Counsel should have flexibility to determine when these circumstances exist. 
6. Comments outside the proposal’s scope. Several commenters raised issues that do not concern the ethics enforcement program, such as the college degree requirement that is being considered as part of CFP Board’s review of the competency standards. 

After carefully considering the comments received in response to CFP Board’s request for public comments, CFP Board has adopted the proposal as published for comment.