Justice Ruth Ginsbert
There’s a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that hasn’t garnered a lot of attention, yet it should.
What it concerns is a federal law that changed the bankruptcy laws in 2005 for consumers. Within that law was a provision that stated bankruptcy lawyers couldn’t give clients advice that may later be deemed illegal, such as telling them to take on more debt. While that sounds like a good law in general, it’s turned out to be confining because of the potential for other advice, which might be solid, not being allowed to be shared with consumers.
For instance, Justice Ruth Ginsberg asked whether a woman who learned she had cancer and needed an operation could be counseled by a lawyer that she should take on more debt to take care of her cancer. The lawyer for the government, William Jay, gave a response that didn’t quite answer the question, which all the justices jumped on (except Justice Thomas, who kept his mouth shut as always).
Mr. Jay’s contention is that the law wasn’t meant to shut down lawyers from giving out advice that might help their clients, only to stop them from advising their clients from telling them anything illegal. The law firm that filed the lawsuit, Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, said that most states already have provisions for that type of thing in state law, and that the federal law counters the state law in that state law says lawyers must give full disclosure to their clients, while federal law tries to mute them.
There was also a provision in the federal law saying that any law firm that worked with clients in offering them debt relief had to classify themselves as a debt relief agency instead of a law firm, and had to use specific language in advertising stating that. Mr. Jay argues that law firms have the right to say whatever else they wish to say, but have to include the disclaimer, while the lawyers state that having to say it at all minimizes the fact that they’re actually a law firm first.
Analysts seem to feel that the justices on the Supreme Court believe the law is in error and unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, Justice Antonin Scalia blurted out “It’s a stupid law. “Where is the prohibition of stupid laws in the Constitution?” That seems to indicate that it’s about to be overturned.
