Legislation called the “Certified Help Options in Claim Expertise for Veterans Act of 2025” or the CHOICE Act has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation is designed to regulate the practice of charging fees for veterans’ claim preparation. It may or may not become law, and if it does, it may be in a different form.

The new legislation would result in two separate sets of rules for charging fees. The current rules for charging fees following an appeal would remain as is. The new rules would apply to charging fees for an initial claim, or a supplemental claim for service connection filed more than one year after a prior denial.

Background: Why is this legislation being proposed?

Under the law as it now stands, it is illegal to charge a fee for representing a veteran seeking benefits, unless the veteran has first received a decision, and that decision has been appealed.

Since attorneys cannot charge for filing claims, most veterans have traditionally worked with veterans service organizations (VSOs), such as the American Legion or Disabled American Veterans, to file new claims. VSOs have accredited representatives, who represent veterans free of charge.

In recent years, organizations and individuals have sprung up, offering claim preparation services to veterans. These organizations and individuals, or “claims preparers” do not technically represent veterans but rather advise and assist them in filing claims and assist with the preparation of evidence. Claims preparers typically charge fees for their services. There is some ambiguity about whether it is legal for these individuals and organizations to charge fees; but this practice has not previously been regulated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

What does the proposed legislation do?

The proposed legislation would allow claims preparers to charge fees for work done on a claim prior to an initial decision if they become accredited under rules prescribed by the VA. 

However, it does not allow fees to be charged:

• If the VA grants the claim based upon a finding that the disability is a chronic disease shown during service or a presumptive period
• For claims filed when a claimant is still on active duty
• If the claims preparer could have filed an appeal, but delayed doing so

The legislation would prohibit:

• Contracts that restrict a veteran’s ability to discharge a claims preparer prior to the date of a decision
• Contracts that require payment prior to the date a decision is made
• Charging a fee for representing a veteran on appeal if a fee was also charged for the claim preparation
• Referrals to medical professionals for opinions if the claims preparer has a business relationship with the medical professional or when the medical professional receives a fee for providing an opinion

It provides restrictions on fees that may be charged:

• Contracts must limit fees to $12,500 or five times the monthly increase granted, whichever is less
• Fees may be paid only if a favorable decision is made
• Prohibits sale or referral of any personally identifiable information for consideration.

There is some ambiguity in the new legislation.

First, the new rules will apply to supplemental claims filed more than one year after a prior denial, that is, for supplemental claims which are not appeals. For some time, it has been legal to charge fees for representation on these claims under the appeal rules now in place. It is unclear what will happen to contracts that were in place for this representation prior to the enactment of the new legislation. Will these contracts need to be re-drafted to apply to the new rules? Or will they be grandfathered into the old rules?

Second, the legislation creates ambiguity in the way it defines a “claim.” For example, a fee may be charged only if a “claim is resolved in a manner favorable to the claimant.” In turn, this is defined as “if all or any part of the relief sought pursuant to the claim is granted.” 

This creates ambiguity because a claim can mean a single disability, or it can mean a single action seeking benefits for multiple disabilities. For example, a veteran can file a single claim form seeking service connection for PTSD, a back condition, and an increased rating for an already service-connected left knee condition. If the claim for PTSD is granted, but the other claims are denied, does that mean that only the PTSD claim has been resolved in a favorable manner? Or that the claim for all three has been resolved in a favorable manner?

This makes a difference, because if only the PTSD claim has been resolved in a favorable manner, the practitioner is still permitted to charge a fee on the other matters on appeal. 

However, if the three matters are a single claim, the practitioner cannot charge for an appeal on the denied matters. It also affects how much can be charged. If there is a $12,500 limit for each “claim,” does this allow for charging $12,500 for the PTSD claim and $12,500 for the back condition as well? Or may only one fee be charged for all three matters. Would it make a difference if the claims preparer has three separate contracts, each one for a single matter? 

Addressing the definition of claim in the initial legislation could prevent the need for clarifying litigation after passage.

What does this new legislation mean for practitioners who currently charge fees for representation on appeals?

If the proposal becomes law, current practitioners may not notice any difference if they don’t wish to take on any initial claims work.

A practitioner considering adding in an initial claims practice will need to decide what to do with initial claims that are partially granted, as it will not be legal for the practitioner to also charge for representation on appeal of that matter unless the practitioner waives the fee for the initial representation. 

If the initial fee is not waived, practitioners will have to represent those veterans on appeal at no charge or would otherwise need to refer the case to another representative to handle the appeal.

The practitioner should, however, be able to represent on an appeal of an initial claim or supplemental claim that has been denied, given that no fee will have been received for the initial claim.

What should practitioners do?

The CHOICE Act represents a significant potential shift in how veterans can receive and pay for claims assistance. While the proposed legislation may bring overdue oversight to a growing field, it also raises important questions around definitions, fee structures, and ethical boundaries. 

Practitioners and preparers alike should consider how future compliance and accreditation requirements may affect their current or potential service offerings.

Goodman Allen Donnelly’s VA disability attorneys are monitoring the bill’s progress and will continue to post key updates. Please contact partner Daniel Krasnegor of the firm’s veterans benefits group with any questions.