The Court had little problem finding that the bankruptcy code included lawyers and law firms among those considered ''debt relief agencies'' pointing to specific provisions that applied to actions only a lawyer could take.
In regards to advising clients to take on more debt, the argument focused first on the breadth of the statute. Milavetz argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it was overly broad. Under Milavetz’ reading of the statute, attorneys acting as debt relief advisors would be prohibited from advising their clients to take on any additional debt, even if it was sound legal advise. The Court however disagreed, holding that the statute ''...prohibits a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor is filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.'' Under this reading of the statute, the Court held that it is not overly broad.
Finally the Court upheld the requirement that attorneys and law firms providing debt relief services in preparation of bankruptcy must disclose this in advertisements. The court reiterated the rule that ''...the States retain authority to regulate inherently misleading advertisements, particularly through disclosure requirements.''
