The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision denying additional attorney fees to Shannon Holstein, who represented a veteran in Department of Veterans Affairs benefits proceedings, according to a ruling issued Jan. 30.
In *Holstein v. Collins* (Fed. Cir. 2026), Circuit Judge Alan Lourie wrote for a three-judge panel that included Circuit Judges Jimmie Reyna and Timothy Cunningham. The court upheld the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' decision, which had affirmed the Board of Veterans' Appeals' denial of Holstein's fee request.
Holstein represented Lester L. Dean Jr. in the benefits adjudication process before the VA. The case originated when Dean filed a claim for compensation for a neck injury in March 2007, which the VA Regional Office initially denied for lack of service connection.
The Federal Circuit's decision addresses the complex issue of attorney compensation in veterans benefits cases, where fee structures and payment mechanisms can significantly impact legal representation for veterans seeking benefits.
The case was argued by Kenneth Dojaquez of Carpenter Chartered in Topeka, Kansas, representing Holstein. Kenneth M. Carpenter also represented the appellant attorney. The government was represented by Patrick Angulo from the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department's Civil Division, along with several other attorneys from both the Justice Department and the VA's Office of General Counsel.
The underlying case began when Dean's neck injury claim was denied by the VA Regional Office. Holstein's representation of the veteran extended through multiple levels of the VA appeals process, including proceedings before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
The Veterans Court had previously ruled in October 2022, affirming the Board's decision in *Holstein v. McDonough* (Vet. App. 2022). That decision became the subject of Holstein's appeal to the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction over veterans benefits cases appealed from the Veterans Court.
Attorney fee disputes in veterans cases often center on the Equal Access to Justice Act and other federal statutes governing compensation for legal representation in administrative proceedings. The statutory framework governing attorney fees in veterans cases has evolved significantly over the years, particularly following legislative changes that expanded opportunities for attorney representation in VA proceedings.
Prior to 2006, veterans were generally prohibited from hiring attorneys to represent them in VA benefit claims. The Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 changed this landscape by allowing attorney representation after a Notice of Disagreement is filed or after an initial claim is denied.
The fee structure in veterans cases typically allows attorneys to collect fees only after certain procedural thresholds are met, and the amount of compensation is subject to various statutory and regulatory limitations. These restrictions are designed to protect veterans from excessive legal fees while ensuring adequate legal representation is available.
Holstein's case appears to involve a dispute over additional fees beyond what was initially approved or awarded for her representation of Dean. The specific grounds for the fee request and the reasons for its denial were not detailed in the available portions of the Federal Circuit's opinion.
The Federal Circuit's affirmance means Holstein will not receive the additional attorney fees she sought. The decision could influence how similar fee disputes are resolved in future veterans benefits cases, particularly regarding the standards courts apply when evaluating requests for supplemental attorney compensation.
Veterans law practitioners closely watch Federal Circuit decisions in fee cases because they establish precedents that affect the economic viability of representing veterans in benefits proceedings. Adequate attorney compensation is viewed as essential to ensuring veterans have access to qualified legal representation in navigating the complex VA benefits system.
The case also highlights the multi-tiered appeals process available in veterans benefits cases. Veterans whose claims are initially denied can appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, then to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and finally to the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C.
For Dean, the veteran at the center of the underlying benefits claim, the Federal Circuit's ruling does not appear to directly affect his entitlement to benefits for his neck injury. The fee dispute was between his attorney and the VA regarding compensation for legal services, separate from the merits of his disability claim.
The decision reflects ongoing tensions in veterans law practice regarding fair compensation for attorneys while protecting veterans from excessive legal costs. As the veterans benefits system continues to process hundreds of thousands of claims annually, questions about attorney fees and representation remain significant policy considerations.
The Federal Circuit's brief affirmance without extensive written analysis suggests the court found no clear error in the lower courts' reasoning for denying the additional fees. However, the limited excerpts available do not reveal the specific legal or factual basis for Holstein's fee request or the courts' rationale for rejecting it.