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.