Accredited Agent, Attorney, Agent, What's the difference?

[broncovet]

My advice is to hire a professional.  Why?

https://www.vetadvocates.org/cpages/why-professional-advocacy

This does not mean a VSO can not do a good job for you, especially in the early stages.  Most Veterans dont hire a professional until/unless they are unable to or frustrated by the long delays with a VSO.  

At the CAVC level, generally, lawyers will receive their compensation from EAJA fees.  To make this happen, you need to appeal a BVA decsion within 120 days and no more.  Dont wait the full 120 days, it does take time to enlist the services of a NOVA advocate professional.

At least some Veterans hired "unaccredited agents" and did not get a good result.  In all fairness, not every Veteran is happy with his or her attorney either.   The 2 biggest complaints I hear from Veterans about their attorneys are:

1.  They often dont return phone calls promptly.  This is an upgrade from VSO's who often dont return them at all.  

2.  The attorney "does not persue the claim" in the manner suggested by the Veteran.  Or, "the Attorney did not do anything".   Generally, the attorney does not call the Veteran and say, "Gee, I read 400 pages of your file today and filed an amendment to your appeal, adding a point of law the Veteran overloooked".  And, he does not send the Veteran a copy of this either. 

Best and safest is to stay with an accredited agent or better yet, lawyer experienced in representing Vets on this page:

https://www.vetadvocates.org/cpages/sustaining-members-directory

At least one Veteran reported he did not get a good result when he hired an "unaccredited agent":

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/05/veterans-disability-benefits-brian-reese-va-claims-insider/

[broncovet]

Good read, in the link provided, dustoff.  This answers many questions. It explains their are at least two types of attorney client fee agreements related to Veterans law:

1.  Agreements where the attorney agrees to accept EAJA fees exclusively before the CAVC.  

2.  Agreements where the client agrees to a percentage of the recovered retro, such as 20 percent.  

    For more precise information, read the link above, absent my hillbilly paraphrase which may not be that useful.  

[namvet6567]

Bronco, I don't think they are allowed to get EAJA payment and a %.  That sounds criminal to me, unless they continued to represent you after a remand by the CAVC.  Usually they get either and will generally quit after the remand win.  A remand doesn't get any monetary award, which is why they request EAJA payment.  Isn't the EAJA is supposed to be in lieu of %.  Doesn't the agreement guarantee they get paid in some way?  jmo

[Dustoff1970]

Representing myself pro se before the CAVC between 2001 and 2003 I achieved a partial victory on a CUE claim that contained 4 separate CUE contentions when the court agreed that the VARO prior to 98 failed to adjudicate me for a TDIU claim from 91 to 98.  The single judge remanded back to BVA and VARO with orders for them to do this and they did and awarded some years back pay.  This was a moot win as before the favorable court ruling the VARO did award me those years of back pay and P&T status.

I also used as one of many arguments that the BVA denial of my CUE was "arbitrary and capricious" and the BVA misinterpreted or disregarded certain 38 CFR laws and regulations.  A lot of work but fun and worked for me.  Often a court and/or BVA remand does result in a win for the vet claimant.

My comment is not legal advice as I am not a lawyer, paralegal or VSO.

[Lemuel]

I said it is difficult to win in Pro Se.  It is even harder to win in pro se the further you get up the ladder in appeal.

But it can be done.

This is a pro se litigant winning a "constructive possession" issue.  And it will be relevant to my present appeal at the BVA.  The VA constructively possessed my inpatient records that show observations of complex partial seizures while hospitalized.  So now I have both observations and confirmation.

23-1525.OPINION.1-30-2024_2261893.pdf (uscourts.gov)