If like me, you’re a consumer bankruptcy lawyer who represents debtors, then listen up.
A very important case is being argued today before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding whether or not lawyers representing debtors must comply with the debt relief agency requirements mandated by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush back in 2005.
Under BAPCPA, debt relief agencies are required to do certain things and prohibited from doing other things. And when these requirements and prohibitions are applied to bankruptcy lawyers, in my opinion they impair the attorney-client relationship and violate an attorney’s free speech rights.
And Alan Milavetz agrees with me.
Milavetz is a Minnesota lawyer who remembers how his mother, “in typical Jewish-mother fashion,” always urged him to be a doctor, lawyer or engineer when he grew up. “She didn’t say doctor, debt relief agency or engineer,” he recalls.
For Milavetz, the inclusion of lawyers in BAPCPA’s debt relief agency provisions is troubling. And while some of the provisions are merely irritating like a pair of ill-fitting shoes, other provisions are far more serious.
In particular, BAPCPA restricts the advice that a lawyer may give to someone contemplating bankruptcy. Specifically, BAPCPA prohibits a bankruptcy lawyer from advising persons of certain limited means to incur additional debt before filing bankruptcy. This restriction, together with the law’s advertisement and disclosure requirements, strikes at the heart of fundamental First Amendment values.
So Alan Milavetz has taken the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It’s a huge challenge for any firm to litigate against the federal government, but especially for us,” says Milavetz, noting the firm has 10 lawyers. “But there comes a point when if you think you’re right — and we do — you move on it.”
Milavetz’s four-year odyssey culminates today when the Supreme Court justices hear arguments in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. U.S.
“This is an evil law prohibiting speech, and among the least powerful people, interfering with their right to get reasonable advice,” Milavetz said. “If we don’t get a judgment that this law is unconstitutional, I have said we will handle no more consumer bankruptcy cases, and we think no true lawyer can handle them as well.”
Source: Law.com
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 0 comments… add one now }