The Oklahoma Bar Journal February 2025

of veterans seeking assistance from accredited representatives. This regulatory framework serves as a deterrent against misconduct and ensures that there is a transparent and structured process for address ing misconduct that helps maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the ADF program. If the VA receives complaints of unauthorized practice before the VA – i.e. , individuals not accredited by the VA charging improper fees to a claimant for the preparation, presentation or prosecution of a VA benefits claim – the VA does not have direct authority to pursue injunctive or disciplinary action. In those cases, the VA will notify the individual or organization to cease the unlawful practice and recommend the complaint be sub mitted directly to the Federal Trade Commission’s complaint assistant. 24 Currently, Title 38 U.S.C. §5905 only authorizes penalties for wrongfully withholding from a claimant or beneficiary any part of a benefit due to the claimant or beneficiary. Whereas, prior to 2006, Section 5905 imposed punishment on a much broader range of conduct related to fees and compensation with respect to providing repre sentation on claims for VA benefits, including criminal penalties. 25 In the absence of its own enforcement authority, the VA must work with state and federal entities to pursue enforcement action in these situa tions. Fortunately, the VA has had multiple successes working with state attorneys general offices, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in pursuing actions against those who attempt to take advantage of veterans related to their VA benefits claims. The VA’s referral to these entities often

Access to timely and qualified assistance is crucial for many veterans seeking benefits that can directly impact their quality of life. Delays in the claims process or inadequate or incompetent support in submitting their claims can lead or contribute to a veteran’s financial instability, mental health issues and sense of isolation, particularly for those who are from marginalized communities.

Upon a finding of clear and convincing evidence of a violation of or refusal to comply with VA laws or regulations or a number of other violations, the penalties the VA may impose range from temporary suspension to perma nent revocation of accreditation. 20 In cases where a representative’s accreditation is suspended or revoked, the VA may also impose additional penalties, such as fines, 21 restrictions on future accreditation applications 22 and, for attorneys, notification to all agencies, courts and bars to which the agent or attorney is admitted to practice. 23 The imposition of discipline impacts not only the accredited representative but also the orga nizations they represent and the veterans they serve. A loss of accreditation can diminish public trust in the organization and may lead to a decrease in the number

designed to be fair and provide accredited representatives the opportunity to respond to alle gations prior to the VA making a decision. When a complaint is filed, the VA conducts an inves tigation to gather evidence and assess the validity of the allega tions. Prior to taking an action to suspend or revoke an accredited representative’s accreditation, the VA is required to provide an explanation of the charges against them, and the accredited repre sentative is entitled to a hearing to defend themselves. The process also includes the opportunity for the accredited representative to appeal any decisions made regard ing their accreditation status. 19 These due process elements help protect an accredited represen tative’s rights and the interests of veterans, thus reinforcing the integrity of the ADF program.

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

10 | FEBRUARY 2025

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL