CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]
- Committees
- Veterans' Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 6, 2025
Bottom line
The bill expands veterans' options for paid legal representation to include initial benefit claims, while also implementing new regulatory oversight and consumer protections to govern these services.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 38, United States Code, to permit accredited agents and attorneys to charge fees for services rendered in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of initial claims and certain supplemental claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. It establishes new regulations for the recognition of these professionals, sets limits on fees, introduces new grounds for suspension, and creates penalties for unauthorized fee charging. The bill also mandates the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide notice of available representation, maintain a public list of accredited persons, and publish its knowledge test for recognition.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides veterans with greater choice and access to expert legal assistance earlier in the claims process, which could lead to more accurate and timely resolution of complex claims. They contend that allowing paid representation for initial claims aligns the VA system with other legal processes where individuals can choose to hire counsel, and that the included safeguards will protect veterans from exploitation.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically express concerns that allowing fees for initial claims could expose vulnerable veterans to predatory practices and undermine the long-standing system of free, accredited representation provided by Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs). They argue that veterans should not have to pay for benefits they are entitled to, and that the new fee structure could create a two-tiered system where those who can afford representation receive better outcomes.
The bill is moderately complex due to its legal amendments and detailed regulatory changes, requiring a careful read to understand its full implications, but is manageable within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), amending 38 U.S.C. 5103A
Notice of Availability of Assistance and Public List of Accredited Persons
This provision requires the VA to notify claimants who are not yet represented by an accredited person that such assistance is available, including free services from recognized organizations. It also mandates the VA to maintain a publicly available website listing accredited persons and a system for claimants to report unaccredited individuals charging fees for claims assistance. The list must be updated quarterly and be easily accessible.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures veterans are fully informed about their options for representation, including both paid and free services, empowering them to make educated decisions about their claims.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while providing information is good, the emphasis on a list of 'accredited persons' without clear distinction between paid and free services could inadvertently steer veterans towards paid options.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need to inform veterans about all available representation options with the potential for confusion regarding paid versus free services.
Section 3(a)(1)(B), amending 38 U.S.C. 5904(a)
Conditional and Temporary Recognition for Agents/Attorneys
This provision allows the Secretary to grant conditional and temporary recognition to an individual seeking to become an accredited agent or attorney if the VA cannot verify their qualifications within 180 days of application. This temporary status lasts for one year, with potential for additional 180-day extensions until full verification is complete.
Section 3(a)(1)(C), amending 38 U.S.C. 5904(a)
Non-Discrimination for Prior Fee Charging or Nonprofit Employment
This provision prohibits the VA from refusing to recognize an individual as an agent or attorney solely because they previously charged a fee for initial claims services before the bill's enactment, or because they charged fees while not yet recognized. It also prevents denial of recognition solely because the individual is an employee of a nonprofit organization seeking recognition in an official capacity.
Section 3(a)(8), amending 38 U.S.C. 5904(a)
Restrictions on Fee Charging and Fee Agreement Filing
This provision prohibits agents/attorneys from charging fees for initial claims related to presumed service-connected disabilities, claims filed while the claimant is on active duty, or supplemental claims delayed by the agent/attorney. It also prevents 'double-dipping' on fees for certain subsequent claims if a fee was already charged for the initial claim by the same organization. All fee agreements must be filed with the VA, and the VA's Office of General Counsel is authorized to audit these agreements.
Section 3(b)(1)(J)-(M), amending 38 U.S.C. 5904(b)
New Grounds for Suspension or Exclusion from Practice
This provision adds several new grounds for suspending or excluding agents and attorneys from practice. These include failure to protect client data and personally identifiable information (HIPAA compliance), selling or receiving consideration for client data referrals, referring claimants to business-related medical professionals for a fee, and using overseas call centers for claims assistance.
Section 3(c)(5), amending 38 U.S.C. 5904(c)
Requirements for Fee Agreements for Initial and Supplemental Claims
This provision outlines specific requirements for fee agreements for initial and certain supplemental claims. Fees must be contingent on a favorable outcome and cannot be collected before the VA renders a decision. The total fee is capped at the lesser of $12,500 (adjusted for inflation) or five times the monthly increase in benefits. The agreement must include a claimant attestation that a standard VA form (notifying of free VSO services) was provided. If past-due benefits don't cover the fee, agents must offer incremental payment options.
Section 4(b), amending 38 U.S.C. 5905
Penalties for Charging Unauthorized Fees
This provision establishes a new penalty for soliciting, contracting for, charging, or receiving unauthorized fees for claims assistance. Violators can face fines as provided in title 18 of the U.S. Code, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. An exception is made for medical examinations or opinions provided by third parties without a business relationship with the accredited representative.
Section 4(c), amending 38 U.S.C. 5905
Penalties for Violations During Conditional Recognition
This provision imposes specific penalties for individuals who violate VA laws or regulations while operating under conditional and temporary recognition. Such violations result in the revocation of their temporary recognition, a $50,000 fine, and a bar from recognition under Section 5904 for one year for the first violation, and 10 years for each subsequent violation.
Section 6(a)
Publication of Knowledge Test for Recognition
This provision requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to publish the necessary knowledge test for recognition as an agent or attorney under Section 5904 on a publicly available VA website, on an on-demand basis, within 180 days of the Act's enactment.
Section 6(b)
Updated and Increased Continuing Legal Education Requirements
This provision mandates the VA to issue regulations within one year to update and increase the continuing legal education (CLE) requirements for continued recognition as an agent or attorney. The amount of required CLE must be greater than what was required prior to the Act's enactment. The VA is also required to conduct biennial reviews of these CLE requirements.
Allows for conditional and temporary recognition of agents or attorneys if the Secretary cannot verify their qualifications within 180 days, extending for one year initially and then in 180-day increments until verification is complete.
Section 3(a)(1)(B)(ii) and (iii)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail within the accreditation process, but it has significant implications for how quickly individuals can begin representing veterans and the level of vetting they receive initially. Its placement might be standard legislative practice for procedural details.
Case for: Proponents would argue this prevents bureaucratic delays from hindering veterans' access to representation, allowing qualified individuals to begin work while administrative processes catch up.
Case against: Critics might argue that allowing individuals to represent veterans before full verification could expose claimants to less-vetted or potentially unqualified representatives, increasing risk.
Estimated impact: Potentially increases the pool of available representatives more quickly, but with a temporary reduction in initial vetting rigor.
Prohibits an agent or attorney from charging a fee for a supplemental claim, higher-level review, or notice of disagreement if another individual employed by the same organization previously charged a fee for the initial claim or a supplemental claim presented after a final decision.
Section 3(a)(8)(A)(iv)
Why it matters:This is a consumer protection measure designed to prevent 'double-dipping' or sequential fee charging by related entities for different stages of the same claim. Its detailed nature is typical for anti-abuse provisions.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this as a critical safeguard against organizations attempting to charge multiple fees for what is essentially a continuous claims process, protecting veterans from excessive costs.
Case against: Some legal firms might argue this restricts their business model, particularly if different attorneys within the same firm specialize in different stages of the claims process.
Estimated impact: Limits potential cumulative fees charged to veterans by a single organizational entity for related claims.
If the total fee payable by a claimant exceeds the amount of past-due benefits awarded, the agent or attorney may not require a single payment and must provide an option for incremental payments, with each increment not exceeding the monthly increase of benefits.
Section 3(c)(5)(D)
Why it matters:This is a practical implementation detail for fee collection, ensuring that veterans are not financially burdened if their past-due benefits are insufficient to cover the full fee. Its placement is typical for payment terms.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a vital protection, ensuring veterans are not left with a large, immediate bill they cannot afford, especially if their awarded benefits are modest.
Case against: Some legal professionals might argue this complicates fee collection and extends the payment period, potentially increasing administrative burden and financial risk for their practice.
Estimated impact: Ensures affordability of legal fees for veterans, particularly those with lower lump-sum past-due benefits.
States that the Act and its amendments supersede any inconsistent State law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of enactment.
Section 7
Why it matters:Federal preemption clauses are often placed at the end of bills to clarify the legal hierarchy. While standard, its broad language can have significant implications for state-level regulations.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures a uniform national standard for veteran claims representation, preventing a patchwork of state laws that could complicate the process for both veterans and representatives.
Case against: Critics might argue that this preempts potentially stronger state-level consumer protections or regulatory oversight that could benefit veterans, centralizing authority solely with the federal government.
Estimated impact: Eliminates any state-level regulations or common law that conflict with the new federal framework for VA claims representation.