Updated Fitness Standards, Procedural Rules and Sanction Guidelines, Effective June 1, 2026

On May 22, 2026, CFP Board announced the adoption of revised Fitness Standards, Procedural Rules and Sanction Guidelines, designed to improve the process for evaluating the ethical fitness of CFP® certificants and candidates for CFP® certification. The changes take effect June 1, 2026.

Changes to the Fitness Standards

CFP Board requires applicants for CFP® certification to demonstrate ethical fitness. In assessing ethical fitness, CFP Board evaluates information that may indicate prior misconduct.

Under the revised Fitness Standards, candidates with certain misdemeanor convictions will be required to file a Fitness Petition only when CFP Board’s Enforcement Counsel seeks a public sanction. Public sanctions may include a Public Notice alerting the public to prior misconduct or a temporary or permanent bar from applying for CFP® certification. In making that determination, Enforcement Counsel will rely on professional judgment, the relevant Sanction Guidelines (including mitigating and aggravating factors) and prior decisions of CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (DEC).

The revised Fitness Standards also create a new Section “D,” consolidating categories of conduct for which Enforcement Counsel may direct a candidate to file a Fitness Petition. Section “C” will continue to identify conduct requiring a mandatory Fitness Petition.

Review the revised Fitness Standards.

Changes to the Procedural Rules

CFP Board has revised the Procedural Rules to allow Enforcement Counsel and a candidate with a “Relevant Misdemeanor” (a term defined in the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct) to jointly request resolution of a Fitness Petition with a Public Notice, without a DEC hearing. In those cases, DEC Counsel may grant the joint motion directly.

CFP Board moved to the Fitness Standards language that previously appeared in Articles 5.5 and 5.6 of the Procedural Rules, which clarify when Fitness Petitions are required based on a bankruptcy or multiple alcohol- or drug-related offenses.

In response to requests from firms through the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), CFP Board also modified Article 17.1 of the Procedural Rules, the confidentiality provision, to enable the Enforcement Team to provide a CFP® professional’s firm with updates on the status of investigations involving their CFP® professionals.

CFP Board also revised the Procedural Rules to clarify when candidates for CFP® certification who file a Fitness Petition are eligible for fee refunds, and to require individuals seeking reinstatement after suspension to demonstrate that they would currently qualify for certification under the Fitness Standards.

Review the revised Procedural Rules.

Changes to the Sanction Guidelines

The Sanction Guidelines have been revised 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 changes 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 the revised Sanction Guidelines.

Public Comments

CFP Board released the proposed revisions for public comment on March 31, 2026. During the 30-day comment period, CFP Board received 107 comments from 54 individuals.

Read the public comments here.

Below is a summary of the comments received.

Changes to the confidentiality provision of the Procedural Rules

• Comments supporting the proposal stated that the changes would improve transparency, enhance client protection, enable firms to take risk management steps and pursue their own investigations if appropriate, and facilitate the production of materials that CFP Board might request in the investigation.
• Comments suggesting changes, such as that CFP Board should notify firms only about investigations arising from allegations of fraud or criminal conduct, or that information be shared only after misconduct was proven. Limiting the categories of cases that may be disclosed or the timing of information sharing would defeat the purpose of the changes, which is to enable firms to be notified of ongoing investigations.
• Comments expressing concern that firms might suspend or terminate employees upon being notified of an investigation. A CFP Board investigation is not a finding or even an accusation of wrongdoing. Firms will conduct their own evaluation of the potential misconduct, and in most circumstances, already will be aware of the underlying circumstances that give rise to CFP Board’s investigation.
• Comments outside the proposal’s scope (e.g., that CFP Board should focus on education or promoting the brand instead of taking ethics enforcement action against CFP® professionals).

Changes to when candidates with certain misdemeanor convictions will be required to file a Fitness Petition

• Comments supporting the proposal stated that the changes would free up the DEC and CFP Board to focus on more serious fitness and integrity issues without a negative effect on client protection. They also stated the changes could speed up the application process for candidates who had only relatively minor misdemeanor convictions.
• Comments suggesting that CFP Board publish standards to ensure consistent outcomes. Prior to making determinations, Enforcement Counsel intends to rely upon the Sanction Guidelines and prior DEC decisions and, in appropriate cases, to seek advice from the Integrity Review Commission.
• Comments opposing a reduction in the standards for obtaining CFP® certification. The proposal does not reduce the fitness standards for CFP® certification. Under the proposal, a candidate with a Relevant Misdemeanor would be permitted to forgo filing a Fitness Petition only when Enforcement Counsel determined that they would not seek a Public Notice or a Temporary or Permanent Bar from CFP® certification.
• Comments regarding which criminal convictions should be considered. Some argued that any conviction should always disqualify a candidate from obtaining CFP® certification. Others asserted that the definition of Relevant Misdemeanor should be modified to include a time limit or exclude conduct that does not relate to professional services. These issues, along with others, will be considered when CFP Board engages in the next review of the Code and Standards.
• Comments regarding fairness. Candidates would have the opportunity to provide information to the Enforcement Counsel during this process.
• Comments outside the proposal’s scope (e.g., that CFP Board should align its standards with those of other regulatory bodies, should not increase fees or should not publish sanctions involving candidates).

Changes to allow Enforcement Counsel and a candidate with a Relevant Misdemeanor to jointly request resolution of a Fitness Petition with Public Notice

• Many comments were similar to those submitted in connection with the previously discussed changes when a candidate would be required to file a Fitness Petition. For example, comments favoring the proposal did so because the streamlined process would allow the DEC to focus on higher-risk cases while reducing the burden on candidates. Likewise, other comments raised concerns regarding consistency of outcomes and the standards for obtaining CFP® certification.
• Comments arguing that the DEC should always decide every Fitness Petition. The joint motion mechanism is not available unless Enforcement Counsel agrees to apply it with respect to a candidate — that is, as to a Relevant Misdemeanor where, based on the Sanctions Guidelines and prior DEC case histories, Enforcement Counsel determines that the DEC likely would resolve the Fitness Petition with a Public Notice.
• Comments about fairness. For example, one commenter stated that candidates should be informed of the implications of agreeing to a Public Notice and that candidates should have the opportunity to decline a joint resolution and to present their Fitness Petition to the DEC. The proposal provides a voluntary mechanism that applies only if the candidate and Enforcement Counsel both agree. A candidate can request a hearing and argue that there was no misconduct. Further, Enforcement Counsel will continue to notify candidates in advance that CFP Board will publish orders imposing a Public Notice.
• Comments outside the proposal’s scope (e.g., that CFP Board should recognize reciprocity with other professional credentials or certifications, make the examination more difficult, or focus more on competency).

After carefully considering the comments, CFP Board has adopted the proposal as published for comment.