Continuing Professional Development (CPD) plays a crucial role in keeping legal professionals’ knowledge and skills up to date. In Australia, CPD units for lawyers are a mandatory requirement, with most practitioners needing to complete around 10 CPD units (hours) each year. These units typically cover key areas such as ethics, practice management, professional skills, and substantive law. Although lawyers often self-assess their activities to meet CPD compliance, many experts believe the current approach reduces CPD units for lawyers to a simple “tick-box” task rather than a meaningful learning experience. It may be time to rethink how we measure, deliver, and value CPD units for lawyers to ensure they truly enhance professional growth.
How CPD works now
Under the current system, most Australian states require around 10 hours (or “points”) of CPD every year. For example, New South Wales and South Australia both set a 10-unit annual requirement. These units often come in fixed categories and some states insist that a portion be interactive (like seminars with Q&A). Lawyers must keep records, but they choose and document their own activities, and a random audit process checks compliance.
Problems with the “hours-based” model
Reviews of CPD have found problems. Lawyers admit that the 10-hour rule can feel like a hurdle to clear rather than a meaningful exercise. A Victorian regulator’s issues paper bluntly noted that the system is skewed toward “points grabbing” and “box ticking” just to renew a practising certificate. In practice, many lawyers cram their learning into a frantic final month (dubbed “March madness”) or pick the easiest seminars that count for CPD.
Research in England made a similar point: an hours-based CPD “creates incentives for minimal effort and commitment by lawyers and providers”. In plain terms, if one hour = one point, there’s an incentive to do exactly one hour of anything – even a passive online lecture – and move on. One industry observer even called typical CPD activities “mostly a box-ticking exercise”. This focus on compliance can overshadow real learning. A UK review concluded that learning tied only to meeting fixed hours tends to sacrifice professional development outcomes.
A shift toward outcomes and competencies
Given these concerns, many suggest moving toward an outcomes-based or competency-based approach. Instead of simply logging hours, lawyers would reflect on what skills they need, plan relevant learning, and then report on outcomes. For example, the Victorian CPD review recommended developing a competency framework for lawyers so that CPD focuses on a “whole basket of skills” required in modern practice. This means helping each lawyer target training to their own gaps. One submission argued that CPD should be “less obviously about (‘tick box’) regulatory compliance” and more directly tied to useful outcomes. In such a model, training becomes “less ad hoc,” more personalized, and more clearly beneficial to the lawyer, employer and client.
Other recommendations include requiring lawyers to set CPD goals or write a brief plan of learning for the year, and later reflecting on what was learned. In Victoria, the proposed changes do not abolish the 10-point minimum, but they do suggest adding structures like guidelines, a steering committee, and possibly even voluntary accreditation programs for high-quality CPD. The goal is to shift CPD from mere compliance to genuine growth.
International trends
Some places have already overhauled CPD. In England and Wales, the Solicitors Regulation Authority scrapped its fixed-hour requirement in 2018. Instead of 16 required hours per year, solicitors now follow an outcomes-focused code: they must continually maintain competence and submit an annual declaration that they have reflected on their learning needs. This model trusts professionals to choose relevant learning rather than preaching “one hour here, one hour there.”
Similarly, countries like New Zealand and the Canadian province of Alberta use competency-driven schemes. Lawyers there choose CPD topics based on their individual needs, under broad competency categories. Alberta, for instance, defines six core competencies (areas like ethics, communication, business skills) and encourages lawyers to map their learning to those competencies. In England and Wales, lawyers identify learning goals across four broad competencies. All these models still require documentation – and often an audit or annual statement – but the emphasis is on what was learned, not just how many hours were logged.
Balancing structure with flexibility
Changing the CPD system requires balance. On one hand, the need for accountability is clear: regulators and the public want assurance that lawyers stay up to date. A defined minimum (like 10 points) sets a guaranteed baseline. In fact, the Victorian review explicitly recommends keeping the 10-hour threshold (so everyone spends at least some time on CPD) while improving the quality of that CPD. On the other hand, the system needs to avoid turning learning into a paperwork chore.
The evidence suggests a middle path. Regulators could still require a minimum number of CPD hours (as a safety net) but couple it with stronger requirements for planning and reflection. They might publish clearer guidance on what counts, encourage mentors or peer reviews, and expand audits to check not just quantity but also meaningful content. The key is to make CPD useful and engaging, not just a tick-box to legalise practice. The Victorian report puts it simply: “more effective outcomes will be delivered by activities that are designed to be useful, relevant and engaging than those delivered to satisfy a compliance objective”.
Conclusion
In summary, many in the profession believe it’s time to modernize CPD regulation. The traditional unit/hour model was a good starting point, but it has drawbacks. By shifting towards competency-based CPD – where lawyers identify their own needs, plan targeted learning, and reflect on outcomes – regulators can help ensure real skill development. Any overhaul would need careful planning and consultation: keeping some structure (to assure the public) while giving lawyers flexibility to learn what they truly need. Done right, reforming CPD measurements could make lifelong learning more meaningful for lawyers – exactly what the public expects from trusted professionals.