practicehacker

Back in the good old days when bashing BAPCPA was in vogue, I posited here that BAPCPA's "debt relief agency" provisions "look more like an effort to create a consumer bankruptcy lawyer clone who, much like the ever-multiplying Agent Smith from The Matrix-Reloaded, speaks and does precisely as directed with ruthless efficiency."  Today's unanimous opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor (with concurrences from Justices Scalia and Thomas) tells us not to worry because while attorneys in fact are "debt relief agents" under the Code, §526(a)(4) "prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt when the impelling reason for the advice is the anticipation of bankruptcy."  Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., v. United States, No. 08-1119 (Op. at 13).

As with most bankruptcy decisions from the Supreme Court, the path taken to the holding is more interesting than the actual holding itself.  This post examines two aspects of that road:

http://www.bankruptcylitigationblog.com/archives/us-supreme-court-cases-us-supreme-court-on-justice-holmes-169th-bday-holds-in-milavetz-that-the-bankruptcy-codes-speech-restrictions-on-attorneys-do-not-turn-them-into-ruthless-drones.html