DISCLAIMER: Any unofficial case summaries below are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
072405P.pdf 09/04/2008 Milavetz & Gallop v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 07-2405
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
[PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Bye and Colloton, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - bankruptcy. Giving the provisions of the Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 a plain reading,
attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are
unambiguously included in the definition of debt relief agencies;
regardless of whether the government's interest in prohibiting certain
kinds of speech under the Act was legitimate or compelling, Section
526(a)(4) preventing debt relief agencies from advising debtors to incur
debt was unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to attorneys because it is
not narrowly tailored, nor narrowly and necessarily limited to restrict only
that speech that the government has an interest in restricting; this
prohibition would included advice constituting prudent bankruptcy
planning that is not an attempt to circumvent, abuse or undermine
bankruptcy laws and, as written, prevents attorneys from fulfilling their
duty to clients to give them appropriate and beneficial advice not
otherwise prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code or other applicable law;
advertising disclosure requirements mandated by Sections 528(a)(4) and
(b)(2)(B) of the Act which require debt relief agencies to disclose that
they are debt relief agencies which help people file for bankruptcy relief
under the Code are not unconstitutional as they only require attorneys to
disclose factually correct statements in their advertising; although less
intrusive means may be conceivable to prevent deceptive advertising, the
sections' disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the
government's interest in protecting consumer debtors from deceptive
advertising. Judge Colloton, concurring in part and dissenting as to
whether Section 526(a)(4) is unconstitutionally overbroad.