Victoria Audited 446 Solicitors for CPD. 31 Had Declared Wrongly.

Most CPD writing treats non-compliance as theoretical. Victoria publishes what actually happens, every year, with numbers — and in its latest report a lawyer lost their practising certificate partly over CPD, lost the application to stay that decision, and lost the appeal.

The numbers for the year to 31 March 2026

The Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner published its annual report on 30 October 2026, covering the CPD year ended 31 March 2026. For solicitors:

"This year the LIV audited the CPD compliance of 446 practitioners – 12% more than last year." And the finding that no other regulator in this field publishes: "The LIV found that 31 practitioners (7%) had incorrectly declared they were compliant with their CPD obligations. Of this group, many realised their mistake and took steps to rectify their non-compliance. At 30 June 2026, three practitioners are yet to rectify their non-compliance."

For barristers, the sample is a fixed proportion: "The Bar selected 5% of barristers (114) for a random audit. Of that sample, 10 barristers (9%) failed to meet the audit requirements, of which five (4%) remained non-compliant at 30 June 2026. Following the audit, two barristers didn't renew their practising certificates for 2026–27."

And separately from the audit, self-reporting produces its own cohort: "Last year, 229 solicitors self-identified as non-compliant. Of these, 224 (98%) went on to comply, and five (2%) remained unresolved at 30 June 2026." Thirty barristers voluntarily declared non-compliance, of whom seven were still non-compliant at 30 June 2026.

The report is published by the VLSB+C.

The sanction, and the appeal that failed

This is the part worth reading twice, because it converts a compliance obligation into a documented consequence: "In July 2025, we decided not to renew a lawyer's practising certificate, partly because they had repeatedly failed to meet their CPD obligations. VCAT dismissed an application to stay that decision, and the Supreme Court later dismissed an appeal of the VCAT decision."

Note the word "repeatedly". This was not a single shortfall. And note that the decision survived two levels of challenge.

The regulator is also explicit about how it reads non-compliance: "Lawyers who don't meet CPD obligations, or falsely certify compliance, are likely to have other issues with their approach to legal practice." CPD is being used as an indicator, not just an obligation — which is a materially different thing to be caught by.

The mechanism, if you are selected

From the VLSB+C's published audit guidance: audits can relate to any of the three previous years; selected lawyers are contacted by the Law Institute of Victoria or the Victorian Bar and must verify compliance within 21 days; rectification activities must be completed within 90 days. Acceptable evidence includes receipts of payment, attendance records and certificates of completion. Details are on the VLSB+C CPD audits page.

The three-year lookback is the detail most likely to catch someone out. Evidence you discarded after last year's declaration can still be requested.

What sits behind it in the Uniform Law

The VLSB's CPD Policy sets out the escalation. If a lawyer fails to comply with a rectification notice, the Board may, with consent, impose conditions on the practising certificate requiring completion of particular CPD activities, and may refer the matter to the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner. Failing to meet outstanding obligations, or at least establish a rectification plan, "may mean that a practising certificate will not be issued by 30 June".

Two statutory hooks matter. Section 52 of the Uniform Law makes compliance with the CPD Rules a statutory condition of a practising certificate, and section 54 requires compliance with the conditions of the certificate, with a civil penalty of 100 penalty units for contravention. And section 298 provides that contravening the Uniform Rules, or failing to comply with a notice under them, is "capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct". The policy is published in full.

Selection is random but can be stratified: a random sample is drawn annually, and lawyers "can be randomly selected from within particular areas of practice or types of practice, to ensure a representative sample." In 2024–25 the audit focused on holders of a Government Practising Certificate practising criminal law.

The three-year trend

Victoria has published the same metrics for three years, which is rare enough to be worth tabulating:

• Solicitors audited: 450 (2022–23) → 396 (2024–25) → 446 (2025–26)
• Met their obligations: 84.8% → 95.5% → 93%
• Barristers audited: 5% every year without exception — 111, then 114
• Barristers still non-compliant at year end: 2 → 1 → 5

The solicitor compliance rate improved by more than ten points across the period, then slipped. In 2022–23 the regulator singled out a different concern: "Of concern to us was the 4.7% who failed to respond to the audit (compared to 3.2% in the previous reporting year)." Non-response, not non-compliance, was the problem that year.

Why this matters beyond Victoria

Victoria is unusual. Across the Australian and Canadian regulators we examined, most publish the audit mechanism and no numbers at all — the Law Society of New South Wales treats CPD purely as an education product in its annual report, and Queensland's Legal Services Commission does not mention CPD once in its 2024–25 annual report. So a Victorian practitioner has more visibility into their own regulator's enforcement than almost anyone else in the region.

The underlying Victorian requirement — ten units, the four mandatory fields — is covered in our guide to Australian solicitors' CPD under the Uniform Rules, and the state-by-state differences in Australian lawyer CPD by state. For a healthcare comparison, South Africa's HPCSA gives selected practitioners 21 days and suspends until proof is produced, which we cover in what happens at an HPCSA CPD audit.

This article quotes the VLSB+C's published annual reports and CPD policy. Figures are per CPD year and are restated annually; verify before relying on them.