U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART V— BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND SERVICES › Chapter CHAPTER 72— UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— PROCEDURE

38 U.S.C. § 7263

Representation of parties; fee agreements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Secretary shall be represented before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims by the General Counsel of the Department.(b) Representation of appellants shall be in accordance with the rules of practice prescribed by the Court under section 7264 of this title. In addition to members of the bar admitted to practice before the Court in accordance with such rules of practice, the Court may allow other persons to practice before the Court who meet standards of proficiency prescribed in such rules of practice.(c) A person who represents an appellant before the Court shall file a copy of any fee agreement between the appellant and that person with the Court at the time the appeal is filed. The Court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, may review such a fee agreement.(d) In reviewing a fee agreement under subsection (c) of this section or under section 5904(c)(2) of this title, the Court may affirm the finding or order of the Board and may order a reduction in the fee called for in the agreement if it finds that the fee is excessive or unreasonable. An order of the Court under this subsection is final and may not be reviewed in any other court.(Added Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, title III, § 301(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4116, § 4063; renumbered § 7263 and amended Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, § 402(b)(1), (d)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238, 239; Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(a)(3), (4), (b)(1), (2)(E), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404, 405; Pub. L. 105–368, title V, § 512(a)(1), Nov. 11, 1998, 112 Stat. 3341.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–368 substituted “Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims” for “Court of Veterans Appeals”.

1991—Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(b)(1), renumbered section 4063 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator”.

Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(a)(3), (4), substituted “Department” for “Veterans’ Administration”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(d)(1), substituted “7264” for “4064”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(d)(1), substituted “5904(c)(2)” for “3404(c)(2)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–368 effective on first day of first month beginning more than 90 days after Nov. 11, 1998, see section 513 of Pub. L. 105–368, set out as a note under section 7251 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Carpenter v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 64 (Vet. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carpenter v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 64 (Vet. App. 2001). · cites it 28× “First, he contends that the fee agreement reviewed by the Board was initiated pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7263 which pertains to representation before the Court, rather than § 5904(c) which addresses representation before the Board and VA.”
Shaw v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 498 (Vet. App. 1997). · cites it 9× “Representation regarding fee agreement: Regarding the amount (which the Secretary estimates as approximately $19,000) sought for fees in connection with the 38 U.S.C. § 7263 (c) proceeding initiated by the Court, the Court will deny these fees for the following reasons.”
In re the Fee Agreement of Smith, 4 Vet. App. 487 (Vet. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “” 38 U.S.C.A. § 7263 (d) (West 1991). It necessarily follows that in order for this Court to be able to review a finding or order of the Board, the Board must have first reviewed the fee agreement; this Court may not review such a fee agreement in the first instance.”
Darald G. Bly v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 256 (Vet. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Bly, the Secretary argues that there are at least three alternative methods for ensuring that, absent the grant of an EAJA award, a veteran's overall award is not reduced by the offset of attorney's fees: (1) The Court may reduce any fee due under the attorney-client contract if…”
James F. Fritz, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 264 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “In accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7263 (c) (1994), Mr. Fritz’s attorney filed with the CAVC a copy of the agreement that outlined the fee structure of his representation of Mr.”
In re the Fee Agreement of SMITH, 1 Vet. App. 492 (Vet. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “The RO held a personal hearing on February 16, 1989, at which the attorney represented the veteran and stated that he would be submitting a fee agreement between him and the veteran and that it would satisfy the attorney-fee provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 7263 (c) (formerly 4063(c)).…”
Jackson v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 27 (Vet. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “GREENE, Chief Judge: These consolidated cases present the questions of whether, under 38 U.S.C. § 7263 , the Court has jurisdiction to review the fee agreements between appellants Deborah J.”
In the Matter of the Fee Agreement of Bruce Tyler Wick. Bruce Tyler Wick, Movant-Appellee v. Jesse Brown, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 40 F.3d 367 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “38 U.S.C. § 7263 (c). The court, “on its own motion or the motion of any party, may review such a fee agreement” and “may order a reduction in the fee called for in the agreement if it-finds that the fee is excessive or unreasonable.”
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (Vet. App. 1998). “§ 7104 (a)), and a party, represented by the General Counsel, to every appeal before this Court ( 38 U.S.C. § 7263 (a)). Finally, we hold also that where, as here, the remand orders of the Board or this Court are not complied with, the Board itself errs in failing to insure…”
Fritz v. West, 13 Vet. App. 190 (Vet. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “He specifically contends that the only jurisdiction vested in the Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7263 (c) and (d) is to review the reasonableness of an attorney fee and to reduce that fee if it is found unreasonable.”
Balridge - Demel v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 227 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “The prudential requirement that the Secretary maintain consistent positions before the Court combined with the staffing needs of the Secretary's General Counsel, who handles thousands of cases and supervises scores of attorneys, and who is charged by law with representing the…”
Charles L. Breedlove Brenda Breedlove v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 7 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “, 38 U.S.C. § 7263 (b) ("Representation of appellants shall be in accordance with the rules of practice prescribed by the Court under section 7264 of this title.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.