MILAVETZ v. U.S., 08-1119 (U.S. Supreme Court 3-8-2010)
Attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are debt relief agencies under 11 U. S. C. §101(12A).  §526(a)(4) prohibits advising an assisted person  to incur more debt only where the impelling reason for such advice is the bankruptcy filing.  The disclosure requirements of §528 are directed at misleading commercial speech, impose only a disclosure requirement, and are valid as applied to attorneys.

HERSH v. U.S., 07-10226 (5th Cir. 12-18-2008)
Attorneys qualify as debt relief agencies under 11 U.S.C. § 101(12A), and 11 U.S.C. § 527(b) does not violate the First Amendment.

MILAVETZ v. U.S., 541 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. September 4, 2008)
Attorneys that provide "bankruptcy assistance" to "assisted persons" are "debt relief agencies" under § 101(12A), but the prohibition of § 526(a)(4) against such agency advising an assisted person to incur any additional debt  is substantially overbroad and unconstitutional as applied to attorneys.  The disclosure requirements of §§ 528(a)(4) and (b)(2) ("We are a debt relief agency.  ...") are constitutional and apply to attorneys.

ZELOTES v. ADAMS, (Conn. 2-27-2007)
The restriction in § 526(a)(4) against advising an assisted person to incur more debt is overbroad and unconstitutional as applied to bankruptcy attorneys.

OLSEN v. GONZALES, (Or. 8-6-2006)
Attorneys are included in the definition of "debt relief agency" in § 101(12A). § 526(a)(4) is overly restrictive in violation of the First Amendment.