Legal Meets Practical: Accessible Solutions

Fee Agreements: CVE Should Take a Page from the SBA

by Sarah Schauerte

Last week I blogged about the Center for Verification and Evaluation’s (CVE) decision to remove all “fee-based” counselors from its website, arguing that the regulation they referred to in support of this move was inapplicable. This topic was also covered in the Washington Business Journal, and I understand from various sources that Tom Leney addressed it in the Tuesday VetForce meeting in Washington, D.C.

I completely agree that veterans need to be shielded from “experts” who are predatory. If you are charging four grand to put together a VetBiz application, you one hundred percent should not be listed as a counselor on the CVE’s website. (You should also be shipped off to an island, with a lampshade on your head). However, the CVE is removing not only those folks, but also individuals who are helping with VetBiz applications on a cradle-to-grave basis.

There’s also a disconnect with what qualifies as “counselor services.” The CVE is removing anyone who they say is charging for “counselor services.” I submit that preparing and submitting an entire application for a business – which can take a very considerable amount of time – is well out of the purview of what qualifies as “counselor services.” If you as the veteran business owner call someone listed on the counselor site and ask them to rewrite your operating agreement, prepare your Letters of Explanation, act as your representative, and interface with the CVE – all for free – they will politely and quickly get off the phone with you.

To protect these veteran businesses, rather than cite to an inapplicable provision and remove anyone who charges a fee in any context, the CVE should borrow from the Small Business Administration (SBA). After all, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) already gleaned some of its VetBiz provisions from the SBA regulations.

If an applicant applies to the SBA’s 8(a) program and hires someone to help with the application, there are provisions intact to make sure that individual is not being taken advantage of. Under 13 CFR 124.4, the SBA imposes restrictions on fees charged for assistance with an 8(a) package, holding that the fee must be reasonable in light of the services performed. In addition, with the package, a form must be included that discloses how much that representative is paid and what the services included. Why not impose the same requirement for VetBiz services?

Also, the VA already requires such disclosures as it relates to its disability compensation claims. Fee-based attorneys and agents must file a copy of the fee agreement with both the regional office and the Office of General Counsel. This way, it can be reviewed for reasonableness. Then, when a claim is granted, the claimant has the opportunity to contest the fee.

These are checks and balances that are already in place to help protect business owners and veterans from being taken advantage of. If the CVE has the same concerns – which it should – it should require that anyone receiving fees for assisting with a particular VetBiz application disclose the fee agreement to the CVE. Also, it should consider adopting a regulation similar to the SBA’s 13 CFR 124.4, which outlines the limitations of fee-based representation. Protect our vets!

Right now, however, the CVE isn’t doing that. Technically speaking, a veteran business owner who doesn’t know any better can still go online and hire a company that will happily take an exorbitant fee for assisting with a VetBiz package. There’s no accountability because no fee agreement has to be approved by the CVE.

Instead, the CVE has taken the route of removing all “fee-based” counselors from the website, never mind that counselors such as myself never charged for questions or calls – even if the issue was nuanced or took a bit of legwork to research. I was happy to do that – I got into this business because my dad was a veteran and a small business owner – and now I don’t have that visibility.

This topic has received considerable attention in recent weeks, so change may actually be effected. Stay tuned….

Did you find this blog informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.

Comments are closed.

Mission Statement

My mission is to provide accessible, high-quality legal services to small business owners and to veterans. I will strive to clearly communicate, understand objectives, and formulate and execute effective legal solutions.

Disclaimer

No Attorney-Client Relationship

This website is maintained exclusively for informational purposes. It is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the lawyer or her clients. Viewing this site, using information from it, or communicating with Sarah Schauerte through this site by email does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Non-Reliance

Online readers should not act nor decline to act, based on content from this site, without first consulting an attorney or other appropriate professional. Because the law changes frequently, this website's content may not indicate the current state of the law. Nothing on this site is meant to predict or guarantee future results. I am not liable for the use or interpretation of information contained on this website, and expressly disclaim all liability for any actions you take or fail to take, based on this website's content.

Links

I do not necessarily endorse and am not responsible for content accessed through this website's links to other Internet resources. Correctness and adequacy of information on those sites is not guaranteed, and unless otherwise stated, I am not associated with such linked sites.

Contacting Me

You may email me through the email address provided by this site, but information you send through email or this website is not secure and may not be confidential. Communications will not be treated as privileged unless I already represent you. Do not send confidential information until you have established a formal attorney-client relationship with me. Even if I represent you, please understand that email security is still uncertain and that you accept all risks of such uncertainty and potential lack of confidentiality when you send us unencrypted, sensitive, or confidential email. Email from me never constitutes an electronic signature, unless it expressly says so.