Todays decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Milavetz v. United States brings to a conclusion a lawsuit filed by local law firm Milavetz Gallop & Milavetz. In 2005, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA).
The BAPCPA restricted certain advice that lawyers were able to give to their clients who were considering filing bankruptcy. Robert Milavetz, the firms President and Barbara Nevin, one of the firms Bankruptcy practitioners recognized a serious problem in the limitations the act placed on his firms ability to advise their clients. The Milavetz firm filed suit in federal District Court, where the Act was held unconstitutional. The case proceeded through the Court system, and was accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. "That, alone, is a rarity" said Alan Milavetz, one of the counsel in the case. "Approximately 50-75 cases are generally accepted on a yearly basis by the U S Supreme Court."
The case was argued to the Supreme Court on December 1st 2009. The Court was left with a choice, according to Robert Milavetz. "The Court could either say that the BAPCPA was vague and overbroad and rule the Act unconstitutional, or the Court could construe the meaning of the Act, and rewrite the Act, itself." The Court chose to construe the meaning of the Act.
"The decision, ultimately, reaches the result we sought", said Alan Milavetz. "The Courts decision is a victory for members of the public who want to receive honest advice. We brought this case so we would be able to give appropriate advice to our clients, and the case has ramifications for all all attorneys and all consumers, when it comes to taking on debt." The law "was overbroad in that it not only prohibited unlawful advice, but also
prohibited lawful advice." The Supreme Court "gave explanation, without voiding the law" said Robert Milavetz. The Court "rewrote the law, and didn't adopt the intent of the lobbyists who worked to pass this law."
"Alan Milavetz further stated "The Court has now upheld the idea that attorneys can give their clients advice to take on debt for valid purposes such as refinancing loans to a lower rate, paying medical bills, or purchasing a reliable car." The Court stated "...the inhibition of frank discussion serves no conceivable purpose within the statutory scheme."
Additionally, "...professionals remain free to tal[k] fully and candidly about the incurrence of debt in contemplation of filing a bankruptcy case."
While Bankruptcy practitioners must call themselves Debt Relief Agency's, and if they choose to advertise, use certain language, the decision provides clarity for the public and for attorneys. "In trying economic times, its all the more important for the public to have access to honest ethical legal advice about their finances" said Alan Milavetz.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1119.pdf
http://www.milavetzlaw.com/Bio/RobertMilavetz.asp
http://www.milavetzlaw.com/Bio/AlanMilavetz.asp
http://www.milavetzlaw.com/Bio/BarbaraNevin.asp
http://www.milavetzlaw.com/Bio/ChadSchulze.asp
Back to Top
