Law on Rice

I took a peek around the internet to see what bloggers were saying about today’s Supreme Court decision in Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, no. 08-1119.

Bob Lawless at the popular Credit Slips blog seems satisfied that the decision came out the way he expected, and chastised early reports for their inaccuracies. By contrast, M. Jonathon Hayes at the BankruptcyProf Blog was “shocked” given his read of the oral argument.

On the other hand, Scott Riddle at the Georgia Bankruptcy Blog was surprised that lawyers could be called anything but debt relief agencies under BAPCPA. Stephen Sather, an Austin bankruptcy, lawyer yawned along with Riddle on the designation, but made the point that BAPCPA survived its first constitutional salvo.

Steve Jakubowski at Bankruptcy Litigation Blog took the opportunity to remind us that today would have been Holmes’ 169th birthday. While Washington State bankruptcy lawyer Jay Jump lamented the decision as a lose-lose proposition for lawyers and their clients alike and rings the free speech warning siren in the process (maybe rightly) at the National Bankruptcy Forum.

As for the McLeod Law Offices, they are probably too busy to read the opinion, at least until the weekend. After all, if you haven’t heard, bankruptcy firms debt relief agencies are a little busy these days–just a little.

I’m skimming one of the long-awaited Supreme Court bankruptcy cases, Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, no. 08-1119, a Justice Soyomayor opinion, for lunch at a Starbucks at Park Central Mall in Phoenix.

By now, far more intelligent pundits than I have surely commented on it. Hopeful they are not confused by one of it’s most important holdings like I am.

In ruling that BAPCPA prohibitions do not violate free speech, the Court argued that section 526(a) “prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising an assisted person to incur more debt when the impelling reason for the advice is the anticipation of bankruptcy.”

I’m still confused because I was hoping it would more clearly address the situation where a client says, “I’m thinking about filing for bankruptcy, should I pay my Visa bill considering they will charge a late fee and increased interest rates?”

Doesn’t that incur more debt?