Who Actually Helps Veterans with VA Claims?

Understanding Who Can Help—and Who Can’t

Navigating the federal VA claims process can be overwhelming for veterans seeking the benefits they’ve earned. With so many organizations, lawyers, and businesses offering assistance, it’s essential to understand who is legally allowed to help, who may be taking advantage of veterans, and what Minnesota’s SF 1894 bill and its companion bill, HF 1855, may mean for veterans’ rights.

Are the Minnesota bills proposing to amend Minn. Stat. § 197.6091 supporting taxpayer government-funded County Veteran Service Officer and Veteran Service Officer workers providing free to the veteran actually uncontroversial? Or is there more to the story with the Disclosure law that threatened to punish any violators with fines of up to $1,000 per day, per occurrence?

The Longstanding Battle Over Who Helps Veterans

There has been a decades-long disagreement between different groups that assist veterans, largely driven by economic motivations. At the center of this divide are Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs), VA-accredited attorneys and claims agents, and private for-profit companies working outside the accreditation legal framework.

VA-accredited attorneys and claims agents were introduced based on need. These professionals serve as a market-driven solution approved by the VA to provide veterans with legal representation while reducing the economic burden on taxpayers who fund free representation through VSOs and County Veteran Service Officers (CVSOs).
Private for-profit companies function as an augment to shortfalls in taxpayer-funded VSO and CVSO programs, addressing gaps in service that free assistance cannot cover. These can include law firms and benefits companies.
Claims Sharks refers to certain for-profit companies accused of using unlawful business practices or charging unreasonable fees for work on initial claims without VA-accreditation. No one disputes that claims sharks are bad, but there is a dispute about what companies are and are not claims sharks.
VSOs and CVSOs rely heavily on federal and state grants, often tied to the volume of claims they process. For this reason, private companies directly compete with VSOs for initial claims work, reducing the number of claims VSOs rely on for funding and recruitment of new members.
VSOs have historically fought against veterans’ rights to hire paid attorneys for initial claims and appeals. Under current law, veterans can only hire an attorney after the VA has built a case against them following an initial adverse decision. VSOs frequently argue that free representation is sufficient, while attorneys argue that veterans deserve the right to legal representation from the start.

For the past decade, the VSO-aligned community frequently referred to anyone who works for a fee from a veteran as a claims shark or shark. This changed somewhat over the past five years as some VSOs came to accept that attorneys and claims agents were lawfully able to provide paid services to veterans as competition. However, while VSOs were trying to sort that out, consulting companies providing services for pay without accreditation quickly absorbed a significant number of veterans seeking help with initial claims as direct competitors with VSOs.

Historical Context: The Fight Over Veterans’ Right to Legal Representation

The restriction of veterans’ rights to hire attorneys for representation in VA claims can be traced back to the Civil War era. At the time, some individuals were filing claims for veterans. Historic accounts suggest the fees for the services were large, resulting in the federal government capping filing fees at $10.

In the 1930s, as part of broader efforts to limit litigation and control VA expenditures, Roosevelt’s administration effectively revoked veterans’ rights to litigate VA claims in court. This decision led to the rise of VSOs as the primary representatives for veterans, a system known as “Splendid Isolation”—a term used to describe the VA’s self-contained claims process, insulated from judicial oversight and legal accountability.

Prior to the 1860s, veterans had access to legal counsel and could challenge VA decisions in court. After the fee cap, veterans would still hire an attorney, but the fees for legal services were limited.
The Roosevelt-era restrictions forced veterans into an isolated administrative system, where the government created the Board of Veterans Appeals without court oversight.
The lack of judicial oversight allowed VA policies to go largely unchallenged, resulting in systemic delays, inconsistencies, and bureaucratic abuses.
This system remained largely unchanged until 1988, when Congress established the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), restoring some judicial review to the VA claims process. A veteran could hire an attorney if the hiring occurred within one year of the Board of Veterans Appeals rendering a decision.
Despite these changes, VSOs continue to oppose broader access to attorneys in initial claims, resulting in veterans not enjoying the right to hire legal counsel whenever needed. Congress maintained the cap on fees “to protect the interests of veterans form the perceived threat that agents or attorneys would charge excessive fees for their services, which essentially required only the preparation and presentation of an application for benefits.” Congress also stated it was to maintain the “informal and nonadversairal” structure of VA’s claims adjudications.
As case law began to develop at CAVC, it became apparent that VA was frequently not adjudicating claims in a “nonadversarial” manner.
In 2007, veterans had their right to hire an attorney or claims agent for a reasonable fee restored once a Notice of Disagreement was filed with the agency.
In 2017, the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) expanded the right to hire a VA-accredited representative starts once the agency issues an adverse decision.

VA Claims Assistance: Free Help vs. Paid Help

Veterans have several options when it comes to filing, appealing, and securing VA benefits. These options fall into two categories: free assistance and paid assistance.

Free VA Claims Assistance

The following groups provide free assistance to veterans filing VA claims and appeals:

1. Congressional Inquiries

Filed through a Member of Congress, these are a free advocacy tool for veterans and other Americans needing assistance with federal agency issues. They are not for filing or prosecuting claims or appeals but can help when a veteran is struggling to receive a timely VA decision.

2. Nonprofit Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs)

Groups like the VFW, American Legion, and DAV offer free VA claims assistance. Their Veteran Service Officers (VSOs) are not individually accredited but work under their organizations’ VA accreditation. These VSOs are salaried employees and funded through membership fees, taxpayer-funded grants, and other sources. Representation is limited to VA agency work.

3. State Agency Veteran Service Officers (VSOs)

State agencies like the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA) offer free VA claims assistance. These officers are not individually accredited but work under their agency’s accreditation or an accreditation of a partner VSO using a memorandum of understanding. They are state employees, paid by taxpayer funding, and their representation is limited to VA agency work.

4. County Veteran Service Officers (CVSOs)

County-based free claims service providers whose expertise varies by county. Like state VSOs, they are not individually accredited but operate under an agency’s VA accreditation. They are county employees, taxpayer-funded, and limited to VA agency work. In Minnesota, most veterans are directed to seek assistance from a CVSO first by the MDVA and the St. Paul VA Regional Office.

Paid VA Claims Assistance

The following groups provide assistance for a fee, but only VA-accredited representatives may legally charge for claims representation:

1. VA-Accredited Attorneys

Licensed attorneys authorized by the VA to assist veterans nationwide with appeals and complex claims. These attorneys work for a fee paid by the veteran and may represent clients before the VA, federal appellate courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They can handle any stage of a VA claim, including Initial Claims, Supplemental Claims, Higher-Level Reviews, and Appeals.

2. VA-Accredited Claims Agents

Non-attorney professionals accredited by the VA to assist veterans nationwide with appeals and claims. Like attorneys, claims agents charge a fee for representation but typically limit their practice to VA proceedings. Some may also be admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. They provide representation at all VA claim stages.

3. Unaccredited Consultants

Companies employing non-accredited individuals charge fees for their work in similar ways as VA-accredited individuals without the authority of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Companies and individuals who provide these services may be violating various laws, including 38 USC § 5904, and committing Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) in states like Minnesota, where it is a crime. UPL happens when an unlicensed person provides legal services, including completing legal documents like a VA Form 21-526EZ, without regard to whether a fee is charged.

Understanding VA Fee Structures

VA-accredited attorneys and claims agents can only charge fees in specific circumstances, typically when representing a veteran after the agency issues an initial decision. They cannot charge fees for assisting with an initial claim. Compensation for services follows these regulations:

Fees must be reasonable as regulated by the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
The veteran may be charged a fixed fee, hourly fee, contingent fee, or a combination of fees.
Contingent fee based on past-due benefits:
- Up to 20% of past-due benefits is presumed reasonable;
- Up to 33 1/3% of past due benefits is not be presumed unreasonable;
- Over 33 1/3% is presumed unreasonable but may be rebutted.
- There exists no federal fee cap of 20% of past-due benefits – a common myth.
- A veteran may dispute the fee at the Board of Veterans Appeals.
To charge a fee, a fee agreement must be in writing with the veteran, signed, and submitted to VA for oversight.

This structure ensures that accredited representatives are only compensated when they assist veterans after the agency issues an unfavorable decision.

Private For-Profit Companies

Commonly, we see three types of companies helping veterans with claims and appeals. The first two types of companies provide the services in a manner consistent with federal law. The third type of company is likely violating federal law.

1. Law Firms

There are many law firms throughout the United States who provide lawful legal services to veterans for a variety of things including divorces, business transactions, wills, estate planning, and VA benefits. If these companies employ a VA-accredited attorney or claims agent, they can lawfully help a veteran with claims issues at the federal agency.

2. Claims Company

A company owned by a VA-accredited claims agent is generally allowed to help veterans with federal benefits matters at VA despite not being licensed to practice law. Each state is different, so be sure to check in yours.

3. Disability or Consulting Company

These companies charge fees but may or may not be VA-accredited, raising concerns about fraud and misrepresentation. Some employ VA-accredited attorneys or claims agents but may not provide legal services, which is different than a law firm, which are heavily regulated by states. Some of these companies offer advisory and consulting services without VA accreditation, which has led to legal and ethical controversies. Without specific laws allowing the practice at the state level, this type of business practice may be illegal.

The Nationwide Push by VSOs to Regulate Federal VA Claims Representation

In recent years, Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) have lobbied for new state-level regulations aimed at controlling who can assist veterans with VA disability claims, citing concerns over so-called “claims sharks.” These efforts have led to legislative pushes in Minnesota (SF 1894 & HF 1855), New Jersey, Maine, and other states that seek to restrict or ban paid claims assistance by non-VA-accredited entities.

At the federal level, this debate is unfolding in Congress through the GUARD Act and the PLUS Act, two competing bills that address VA claims representation. The GUARD Act seeks to crack down on unaccredited claims consultants by imposing criminal penalties for unlawful claims assistance. The PLUS Act, in contrast, recognizes that the VA and taxpayer-funded VSOs cannot meet demand alone and proposes an accreditation system for non-attorney claims consultants to legally operate under federal oversight, charging a fee for initial claims work, which is currently unlawful.

While Congress has not yet resolved the issue, some states have moved ahead unilaterally, enacting or proposing laws that would regulate the federal claims process at the state level. These laws are typically introduced under the stated purpose of protecting veterans from fraudulent claims assistance, but they frequently fail to differentiate between lawful VA-accredited representatives, including attorneys and claims agents, and unregulated claims consultants.

As a result, these laws often raise constitutional issues, including potential violations of the First Amendment and federal preemption under Title 38 of the U.S. Code.

Many of these legislative initiatives are drafted by the CVSO and VSO community, often resulting in vague or overly broad language that fails to clearly define legal obligations and restrictions. Such vague statutes risk being void for vagueness under Marbury v. Madison (1803), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to address a veteran’s benefits matter, which emphasized the necessity of clear legal standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.

Key Motivations Behind the Push

Preserve VSO influence. Many VSOs receive taxpayer funding based on the volume of claims they process and view private claims consultants as direct competition that could reduce their claim numbers and, subsequently, their funding.
Limit attorney involvement. VSOs have historically opposed veterans’ rights to hire private attorneys for initial claims and continue to advocate for limits on paid legal assistance.
Federal accreditation as a barrier. By requiring VA accreditation for all paid assistance, VSOs seek to eliminate competition from non-lawyer claims consultants, many of whom assist veterans in ways that VSOs and County Veteran Service Officers (CVSOs) cannot.
States moving ahead of Congress. With Congress still debating the GUARD Act and PLUS Act, some states are not waiting and have begun imposing their own restrictions on claims representation, despite federal preemption concerns.
Leverage state authority over a federal system. Critics argue that these laws illegally regulate a federally controlled process and violate federal preemption laws under Title 38 U.S. Code, which already dictates VA claims representation requirements.

The Fight Over Veterans’ Rights: Does SF 1894 and HF 1855 Help Or Hurt?

Minnesota’s SF 1894 and HF 1855 bills aim to regulate who can charge veterans for claims assistance by amending the Disclosure statute, Minn. Stat. § 197.6091. Supporters argue that these bills will protect veterans from fraud, while critics claim they limit veterans’ ability to choose who helps them and fail to address deeper systemic issues within the VA claims process.

Minnesota’s SF 1894 and HF 1855 bills are an amendment to the controversial 2017 Disclosure statute that critics argue already violates the U.S. Constitution and federal preemption laws. The existing law forces private VA-accredited attorneys and claims agents to promote County Veteran Service Officers (CVSOs) in their advertising and force disclosures that steer veterans toward government-funded representation rather than allowing them full access to legal counsel of their choice.

Under the 2017 law, VA-accredited attorneys and claims agents must present veterans with a state-mandated disclosure form stating that free services are available through CVSOs and VSOs, even though those services are often limited in scope and may not be the best option for the veteran’s individual case. This compelled speech requirement has been challenged as unconstitutional, violating both First Amendment rights and federal preemption under Title 38 of the U.S. Code, which governs VA representation.

The Disclosure, as written by the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs commissioner, stated, in part:

“Veterans benefits services are offered at no cost by federally chartered Veteran Service Organizations, the
Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs and by the Minnesota County Veteran Service Officers.”

For VA-accredited attorneys providing legal services under their law license, it poses some unique ethical challenges as it requires the veteran client to sign the document also agreeing the the following:

“You must sign this form if you wish to pay for services that you could receive at no cost from a Veterans Service Organization, the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs or Minnesota County Veterans Service Officer.”

Basically, the Disclosure requires the attorney to force the veteran to sign and agree that the services the veteran wants to pay the attorney for are the same as what a non-attorney CVSO or VSO provides. For most veterans with experience working with a VSO or CVSO, this statement in the Disclosure is false.

The veteran is looking to hire an attorney to receive services the VSO or CVSO cannot provide, and most veterans seeking legal help already experience an adverse outcome through their free help.

However, the existing statute caused a chilling process where some of the limited attorneys who are VA-accredited ceased their Minnesota veterans law practice due to the massive $1,000 per day, per occurrence fine and lack of a bright line rule spelling out how legal services regulated by the Minnesota Supreme Court could not be classified as veterans benefits services regulated by the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, a separate branch of government in Minnesota.

What SF 1894 and HF 1855 Propose:

Expands the 2017 law by requiring VA accreditation for any entity charging veterans for claims services.
Mandates written fee agreements for paid services to ensure transparency.
Prohibits misleading advertising and guarantees of claim success.
Increases penalties for noncompliance, making violations an unlawful practice.
Reinforces the requirement that attorneys and private entities disclose that free services are available through CVSOs and VSOs.

Supporters’ Arguments:

The bills protect veterans from predatory actors who charge high fees for services that could be obtained for free.
Ensures accountability by restricting claims assistance to accredited professionals.
Aligns state law with federal requirements that already govern VA accreditation and representation.
Strengthens penalties against unethical actors who exploit veterans.

Critics’ Arguments:

Restricts veterans’ choice by limiting who they can hire for claims assistance.
Violates the First Amendment by forcing VA-accredited attorneys and claims agents to promote government-funded services over private options.
Conflicts with federal law, which already regulates who can charge for VA claims representation.
Fails to address inefficiencies in VA processing that drive veterans to seek outside help in the first place.
Threatens to eliminate legitimate businesses that provide valuable services, including non-accredited firms that assist veterans in gathering evidence and preparing claims.
Creates enforcement risks, as Minnesota attorneys testified that they have actively stopped taking VA cases in the state due to previous legislation making compliance overly burdensome.
Lacks evidentiary support from MDVA, which failed to present actual, documented cases of veterans being harmed by existing practices that would be prevented by this legislation. Despite already having the ability to enforce current laws against fraudulent claims practices, MDVA relied on anecdotal examples rather than verifiable cases demonstrating systemic issues requiring legislative action.

Minnesota Constitutional and Legal Challenges

Critics of SF 1894 and HF 1855 argue that the expansion of the 2017 Disclosure statute further entrenches unconstitutional compelled speech requirements and illegally interferes with federally regulated VA representation. Legal experts warn that these amendments could face constitutional challenges under:

The First Amendment, as they impose speech requirements on private attorneys and claims agents, forcing them to advertise government services that may not be in a veteran’s best interest.
Federal Preemption, as Title 38 of the U.S. Code already governs VA accreditation and attorney-client agreements, making state intervention legally questionable.
The Commerce Clause, since VA-accredited attorneys operate in a national legal practice, and Minnesota’s law could be seen as unlawfully restricting interstate commerce.

A Larger Battle Over Veteran Representation

The debate over SF 1894 and HF 1855 reflects a larger national conversation about whether the VA claims system should remain dominated by free VSO representation or allow greater access to paid professional assistance at earlier stages in the process.

This section now fully addresses the historical and legal concerns surrounding Minnesota’s existing disclosure laws, the constitutional issues with SF 1894 and HF 1855, and how these laws affect veterans’ ability to seek legal representation. Let me know if any further refinements are needed!