Minnesota Hearing on Veteran ‘Claim Sharks’ Sparks Debate

The Minnesota House Veterans and Military Affairs Committee just held a heated hearing on House File 1855, a bill aimed at cracking down on so-called “claim sharks” that charge veterans for assistance with VA benefits. The bill would require all providers of veterans’ benefits services to be federally accredited and prohibit them from making guarantees about benefits outcomes.

While framed as a protection against fraud, the bill has ignited fierce debate, splitting stakeholders into three distinct positions rather than the expected two:

1. Government-funded Veteran Service Officers (VSOs) and the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA) supported the bill, arguing that county VSOs, state MDVA representatives, and congressionally chartered veteran organizations like the American Legion, DAV, and VFW provide all the help veterans need—for free.
2. Private companies and unaccredited consultants opposed the bill, arguing that veterans should have the right to seek alternative help outside the current accreditation system, particularly when overburdened VSOs cannot meet their needs.
3. VA-accredited attorneys also opposed the bill, but for different reasons—expressing concern that the legislation is being used as a tool to block properly credentialed attorneys from assisting veterans in Minnesota, an issue that echoes a longstanding effort by VSOs to restrict legal representation in VA claims.

A legislative hearing on HF 1855, presented initially as a measure to protect veterans from unaccredited “claim sharks,” took an unexpected turn as testimony and legislative discussion revealed a pivot in focus by VSO’s and CVSO’s—one that now places heightened regulatory scrutiny on licensed attorneys and law firms charging legal fees for legal services and advertising their services.

Legislation similar to what’s being introduced in Minnesota is also being rolled out in other states throughout the country. This provides a bird’s eye view of how supporters in each state may strategize on similar bills.

Minnesota HF 1855 Hearing

The Original Premise: Protecting Veterans from Predatory Actors

HF 1855 was initially promoted as a necessary safeguard against unaccredited, for-profit entities that charge veterans fees for assistance with their benefits. Proponents, including members of Minnesota’s County Veterans Service Officer (CVSO) community and state-backed Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), argued that predatory actors were misleading veterans, charging high fees while providing little value in return.

The bill sought to require accreditation for those assisting veterans with claims, ensuring compliance with federal guidelines. However, as the discussion progressed, it became clear that the focus was shifting from only regulating unaccredited entities toward increased regulation of how licensed attorneys and law firms operate within the space.

A Shift in Target: From Claim Sharks to Licensed Attorneys

During the hearing, multiple supporters of the bill began emphasizing concerns not just about unaccredited organizations but also about attorneys who charge fees in the usual course of business when assisting veterans.

While the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs already maintains a regulatory framework governing attorney fees in veterans’ claims, HF 1855 supporters suggested additional state-level oversight. Some even characterized attorneys as problematic actors in the veteran benefits space, without addressing existing accreditation and legal oversight under federal law.

VA-accredited attorney Benjamin Krause, who testified in opposition to the bill, raised concerns that the legislation was being used as a pretext to restrict attorneys’ involvement in veteran claims, a position that aligns with historical opposition from the VSO and CVSO communities to licensed legal representation.

What Supporters of the Bill Said

Dr. Christy Janigo (American Legion & MACVSO), Ben Johnson (MDVA), Stephen Whitehead (DAV), Barry Hendrickson & Jon Gohn (VFW), Marissa LaCourt (Goodhue County CVSO), and John Baker (MACVSO) testified in support of the bill.

The government-funded VSO and CVSO testifiers painted a picture of a well-funded, well-trained network of CVSOs and VSOs who can provide all the help veterans need at no cost. They argued that predatory companies exploit vulnerable veterans by charging fees—sometimes a percentage of a veteran’s back pay—while providing no additional benefit over what free services already offer.

Janigo, speaking on behalf of the Commanders Task Force (CTF), listed examples of misleading practices without direct evidence of the activity, including:

• Asking veterans to sign away direct deposit access
• Promising higher ratings they cannot guarantee
• Encouraging veterans to avoid VA doctors in favor of private, paid medical opinions
• Holding onto claims until close to the one-year deadline to maximize back pay—and their own cut
• A homeless veteran paying fees based on a good outcome to a VA-accredited attorney

Dr. Christy Janigo (Commander’s Task Force, MACVSO, Hennepin County, Assistant County Veterans Service Officer)

“I have worked with homeless veterans who had signed a contract with a private attorney. And I ask you, is it ethical for a private attorney or business to profit off a homeless veteran?”

“I have had to debunk misinformation claim sharks have perpetuated about the speed of claims with veterans believing that an attorney or a private business could get them through it faster and to a 100% rating. That is unequivocally false.”

Stephen Whitehead (MN DAV – Disabled American Veterans)

“As I was preparing for this hearing today, I was stunned while I was doing some research that, as Representative Greenman said, Mr. McKenna, I too received an email just yesterday from an attorney out of Rhode Island asking me as a DAV, as also, to share their resources on our website.”

“We have people from out of state coming in to take advantage of our veterans. And then to have veterans call us up and say, well, they filed this, this, this, this. And one thing that the DAV and us VSOs are very proud of is making sure that the veterans aren’t actually jeopardizing and filing a false information or false document.”

Marissa LaCourt (Goodhue County, Assistant County Veteran Service Officer, Legion)

“Veteran benefits are earned benefits at the price of our bodies. These benefits are not a quick buck for a predatory law firm to make a profit off of our sacrifice.”

“These predatory practices need to be addressed, and these firms should be ashamed of this type of behavior.”

“This proves that these law firms are not out for the veteran. They want a quick buck off of the suffering of our veterans. They are approaching them at the lowest of their lives.”

These individuals made direct statements linking attorneys or law firms to predatory practices they believe are harming veterans.

Hendrickson (VFW) noted that other states have passed similar laws to protect veterans from financial exploitation.

The Private Firm Opposition: A Fight for Choice?

Representatives from Veteran Benefits Guide (Ryan Scalmanini) and Veterans Guardian (John Blumstrom) pushed back, arguing that veterans deserve the right to choose how they receive assistance.

Blumstrom stated that his firm operates transparently, does not charge upfront fees, and provides a service many veterans feel is necessary. He pointed out that the law currently does not allow his company to become accredited, making it impossible to comply. Instead of banning private options, he proposed regulations, fee caps, and transparency requirements rather than an outright prohibition.

Scalmanini, a former VA claims rater, added that many veterans turn to private companies after experiencing delays or denials when working with VSOs. According to him, over 70% of their clients had first tried to navigate the process with a VSO but were unsuccessful.

VA-Accredited Attorneys Oppose the Bill for Different Reasons

Attorney Benjamin Krause (United Veterans Leadership Council) and Brian Lewis (private VA-accredited attorney) both opposed the bill but took issue with its broader implications: Was this really about stopping fraud, or was it about limiting access to licensed attorneys?

Krause, a VA-accredited attorney and disabled veteran, pointed out that Minnesota law already prohibits unlicensed individuals from providing legal advice or preparing legal claims. The unauthorized practice of law statute, Minn. Stat. § 481.02, should be enough to prevent the fraud complained of by the bill’s supporters.

Lewis, another VA-accredited attorney, argued that the bill incorrectly lumps accredited attorneys with claim sharks, making it more difficult for veterans to seek legal help for complex cases. He also took issue with the state government trying to regulate licensed attorneys under the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, even though they are already regulated by both the federal VA and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

A Split Opposition: Two Camps Fighting the Same Law?

The bill’s most surprising development was how it inadvertently created two separate camps opposing the law for different reasons.

• Private firms argued that veterans should have the freedom to pay for services if they choose.
• Attorneys argued that veterans should have access to independent legal representation, but the VSO/CVSO community has a track record of blocking them.

While the two groups found common ground in opposing the bill, attorneys drew a clear distinction between themselves and unaccredited consulting firms.

Legislative Claims About MSBA’s Position on the Bill

During the hearing, Rep. Sandra Feist and John Baker—both licensed attorneys in Minnesota who support the bill—asserted that the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) had not raised concerns about the legislation within its membership. However, as the details below clarify, their statements may have confused the reality of MSBA’s engagement with the bill.

Rep. Feist’s Statement on MSBA’s Position

Rep. Sandra Feist directly addressed concerns about how the bill impacts attorneys, stating:

“I confirmed with the state bar association that they’re not aware of any concerns within their membership within those smaller committees about this bill. So I think that is important to state. You know, individual lawyers are allowed to have their opinions, but no lawyers as part of that Bar Association vetting process, which is very rigorous, have said that they have any concerns.”

John Baker’s Initial Framing

Earlier in the hearing, John Baker, Executive Director of the Minnesota Association of County Veterans Service Officers (MACVSO), similarly noted:

“There are organizations that exist to represent the interests of attorneys, such as the Minnesota State Bar Association, and to the best of my knowledge, they have not raised any concerns about this bill.”

Benjamin Krause’s Clarification On MSBA Opinions

Veterans law attorney Benjamin Krause responded to Baker’s statement, pointing out that he had spoken with the MSBA Military and Veterans Affairs Section and was informed that the organization had not yet analyzed the bill as of the previous week for an official position to support or oppose it. While Krause was able to clarify Baker’s claim, he was not given the opportunity to respond to Rep. Feist’s statement.

This distinction is significant: MSBA had not formally reviewed the bill to determine whether it would oppose or support it. Rather, the organization had not engaged with the legislation in an official capacity because it had not been submitted for formal review in time by its supporters. MSBA typically requires up to nine months to conduct conflict checks and develop a position on legislation.

Notably, Krause, a dues-paying MSBA member, first alerted MSBA’s Senior Director of Policy, Nancy Mishel, to concerns about a draft of the bill on January 23, 2025, after learning MDVA planned to pursue it. The Military and Veterans Affairs Section acknowledged discussing these concerns with Krause on March 10, 2025, at which point MSBA confirmed they had not had sufficient time to analyze the bill or establish a position.

The bill itself was formally introduced as SF 1894 on February 27, 2025, and as HF 1855 on March 3, 2025. Reports suggest that its supporters did not actively seek MSBA’s input before moving forward with the legislation.

That said, multiple attorneys who happen to be MSBA members expressed concern in their individual capacity with the bill’s language, which appears to be inconsistent with the information conveyed by Rep. Feist.

Past Legislative Actions and the Absence of MSBA Review

A similar scenario unfolded in 2017 when the MSBA Military and Veterans Affairs Committee was not granted the opportunity to formally assess HF 1209 before its passage. That bill ultimately became Minnesota’s Disclosure Law (Minn. Stat. 197.6091).

While HF 1209 made no explicit mention of attorneys, the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA) later interpreted the statute as indirectly regulating the practice of law. Under MDVA’s reading of the law, attorneys assisting veterans with claims were required to promote County Veteran Service Officers (CVSOs) before offering their own legal services—despite the fact that CVSOs are not licensed attorneys.

The Unintended Consequences of the Disclosure Law

As implemented, the statute compels attorneys to endorse CVSOs’ capabilities, regardless of their professional assessment. In practical terms, this means that even if an attorney believes a veteran would be better served by direct legal representation, they must first direct the veteran toward government-funded services before offering their own assistance.

The penalty for noncompliance?

• Up to $1,000 per violation, per day—a fine structure more in line with corporate regulatory penalties than professional advisory services.
• The law effectively discourages private legal representation while favoring government-sponsored alternatives, even though attorneys are bound by professional ethics to act in their clients’ best interests.

The Role of John Baker and the Legislative Push for CVSO Prioritization

John Baker, who testified in support of HF 1209 in 2017 while addressing a separate bill, would later take over as Executive Director of MACVSO in 2023. His past support for policies that mandate veterans be directed to CVSOs first provides important context for his role in advocating for HF 1855 today.

Why This Matters

The ongoing discussion about MSBA’s role in the legislative process highlights how legal oversight is handled when veterans’ rights to representation are at stake. MSBA is typically seen as a key organization in evaluating legal and constitutional implications of legislation. However, in both 2017 and 2025, bills with major consequences for veteran legal representation advanced without meaningful engagement from MSBA before introduction.

This raises an important question: Is legislative transparency being sacrificed in favor of a predetermined policy agenda that limits veteran choice?

The distinction between “no concerns raised” and “no review conducted” is a critical one. Ensuring that legislative sponsors accurately represent the status of legal review is essential to maintaining an informed and transparent process—one that prioritizes veterans’ actual needs over bureaucratic interests.

Wait Times and Inaccessibility: What Does This Mean for CVSO Funding in Minnesota?

Krause’s survey of ten major County Veterans Service Offices (CVSOs) in Minnesota revealed a troubling reality: in half of these offices, veterans could not reach a live human when calling for assistance. The survey covered offices responsible for 173,000 veterans, more than half the number of veterans living in Minnesota.

The counties using automated phone systems—Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Carver, and Stearns—serve the largest number of veterans of any five counties combined, yet their offices failed to provide immediate human contact. Veterans calling in had to wait up to 48 hours for a call back from an attendant.

Those who did answer—Dakota, Anoka, Wright, Scott, and St. Louis counties—reported wait times of two days to four weeks just to schedule an appointment with an accredited CVSO. And remember, talking with an office attendant is not the same as speaking with the CVSO about your claim.

This raises serious questions about how CVSO funding is being utilized in Minnesota.

If taxpayer dollars are funding a system where veterans must wait days or weeks for basic assistance—or worse, cannot even speak to a person—where is the money going?

The lack of accessibility contradicts claims that CVSOs are the best-equipped entities to handle veterans’ benefits. It also affirms the need for greater access to private-sector assistance, such as accredited attorneys and claims professionals, who can often provide quicker and more efficient support.

As policymakers consider restricting access to alternative help, they must first address the broken CVSO infrastructure and ensure that veterans are not left in limbo due to staffing shortages, inefficient phone systems, or bureaucratic delays.

CVSO’s Distorted View Of “Claim Sharks”

However, the most revealing part of Krause’s survey was how CVSOs defined “claim sharks.”

He expected them to cite well-known unaccredited consulting companies—such as those flagged in the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) flyer, including Veterans Guardian and Veterans Benefits Guide.

Instead, one official in the CVSO office pointed to a VA-accredited attorney who legally charged a fee for their work as an example of a “claim shark.” The official complained that once the attorney submitted the power-of-attorney form with the federal VA, the CVSO could no longer see into the veteran’s file.

When Krause asked about unaccredited consulting firms, the CVSO appeared unfamiliar with the distinction between these entities and legally authorized representatives.

This response raises serious concerns about the shifting narrative behind HF 1855.

The bill was originally framed as targeting unaccredited, predatory companies. However, Krause’s findings suggest that at least some government-funded CVSOs equate VA-accredited attorneys—who follow federal regulations and provide professional legal representation—with fraudulent actors.

Krause concluded his testimony by highlighting a disturbing irony: “Her example in her office of a claim shark was me. And I’m a veteran.”

If the very officials tasked with assisting veterans are misrepresenting federally accredited legal professionals as bad actors to veterans and the public, who is truly driving this legislation—and why?

The focus appears to have shifted from protecting veterans from unregulated consultants to restricting access to attorneys, raising concerns about whether HF 1855 serves veterans’ best interests or the bureaucratic status quo.

What’s Next?

The bill passed the committee but will face scrutiny in the Judiciary Committee, where legal concerns—especially those raised by accredited attorneys—will be examined more closely.

As the debate continues, veterans should ask themselves: Who really benefits from this bill? Is it about protecting veterans, or is it about maintaining the power of government-backed VSOs by eliminating alternatives?