Georgia committee tightens rules for private consultants who help veterans; adds accreditation requirement

A Georgia legislative committee on Monday approved an amended substitute for House Bill 108 that would cap contingency fees charged by private consultants or attorneys who help veterans pursue federal benefits, mandate a larger disclosure in contracts and impose $10,000 civil penalties for violations.

Representative Bonner, the bill sponsor, told the committee the substitute contains three principal changes: a cap on fees at $12,500, a requirement that contract disclosures be set in 14-point font so they are more prominent, and an increase in civil penalties to $10,000 per violation. "This matches the Florida law that was passed," he said, and called the penalty "a pretty stiff deterrent" aimed at punishing bad actors while allowing legitimate providers to operate.

The measure drew a mix of support and concern. Senator Steele described a staffer with post‑traumatic stress disorder who said an attorney’s contingency contract could have left him owing more than $25,000; Steele asked whether the substitute would have prevented that outcome. Representative Bonner said the bill would cap contingency fees, require a written contract that preserves a veteran’s back pay and limit fees to the defined gain.

Veterans service organizations urged the committee to add an accreditation requirement. Dwayne Coborn, chief of staff for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, cited federal regulations and the Supremacy Clause and warned that laws in other states have faced successful legal challenges. "Accreditation is federally required," Coborn said, citing the federal regulatory framework for representatives.

Supporters of the sponsor warned that adding a strict accreditation requirement would "gut" the substitute by eliminating the non‑accredited consultants the bill is intended to regulate. Representative Bonner argued the substitute targets consulting firms that do not act as accredited VA agents and that imposing an accreditation requirement would remove the alternative for veterans who have exhausted other channels.

After extended debate, a committee member offered an amendment to require that covered entities "be accredited by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for that purpose." The committee voted by hand to adopt the accreditation amendment; the chair announced the amendment passed. The committee then voted to pass the committee substitute as amended.

The bill as amended now combines (1) a contingency‑fee cap of $12,500, (2) a disclosure formatting requirement to increase visibility, and (3) civil penalties of $10,000 per violation, plus the VA accreditation language added by amendment. Sponsors said the changes aim to protect veterans from so‑called "claim sharks" while preserving options for veterans who cannot obtain relief through existing VA or VSO channels.

The committee record shows extensive testimony from veterans advocates and VSOs who disagreed about the practical effects of the accreditation language and about whether the fee cap amount was appropriate for lower‑paid veterans. Representative Derrick Jackson, a Navy veteran, said $12,500 "is still too much" for many enlisted service members who are most vulnerable to predatory practices.

The committee did not take further public‑record steps beyond the committee vote; the chair adjourned the meeting after completing consideration of this bill and the next item on the agenda.