Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States
United States Supreme Court
559 U.S. 229, 130 S. Ct. 1324 (2010)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCA) to correct abuses in the bankruptcy system. BAPCPA reform measures included provisions that regulate bankruptcy professionals who help consumers file bankruptcy. One rule specifically prohibited debt-relief agencies from advising consumers to incur more debt or pay an attorney or someone who prepares a bankruptcy petition a fee or charge to prepare a petition or to represent the consumer in bankruptcy proceedings. Two attorneys at the law firm Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., and two of its clients (collectively Milavetz) (plaintiffs) filed a preenforcement suit asking the court to declare that the rule did not apply to attorneys, such that attorneys could advise their clients to incur additional debt. The district court concluded that the term “debt relief agency” did not include attorneys, but the appellate court reversed. Noting a split among the circuits on the issue, the Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
