New York says helping your neighbors understand a court form is a crime
In New York, a debt collector can sue you for money you don’t owe—and win, if you don’t respond. These debt-collection lawsuits aren’t uncommon; they make up roughly a quarter of all cases filed in New York state courts, and defendants fail to appear in up to 90% of them. They can result in financial ruin, even when claims lack merit.
Reverend John Udo-Okon, a pastor in the South Bronx, wanted to do something about it. He partnered with the nonprofit Upsolve to train as a “Justice Advocate”—a volunteer who helps people fill out check-the-box forms for responding to debt-collection complaints. More than 100 members of his community signed a petition saying they wanted his help.
But according to New York, his project is illegal.
Under the State’s unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes, Rev. Udo-Okon faces civil and criminal penalties for offering free, individualized guidance on a one-page court form, even after completing a training program reviewed by consumer law experts. Pacific Legal Foundation has filed an amicus brief in Upsolve, Inc. v. James, now on petition to the Supreme Court, to protect the First Amendment rights of Upsolve, Rev. Udo-Okon, and the countless New Yorkers seeking their advice.
These statutes are content-based restrictions on speech
When the government restricts speech, courts usually ask whether the law targets the speech’s content or whether it applies regardless of the message. A noise ordinance, for example, treats every message the same; that’s a “content-neutral” restriction, and courts give the government more leeway to enact it. But a law that singles out a particular topic or type of message is “content-based,” and the government faces a much steeper burden to prove the restriction is justified.
The Second Circuit agreed that New York’s UPL statutes regulate speech as applied here—Rev. Udo-Okon wants to communicate advice, not draft pleadings or appear in court—but classified the restriction as content neutral, giving the government an easier path to prove its restriction is lawful.
But as PLF’s brief explains, UPL statutes target a specific category of speech: legal advice. To enforce them, the government must examine the speech’s content and decide whether those words constitute individualized legal guidance.
To determine whether someone has violated the statute, the government must evaluate what was said—whether the words constitute legal advice rather than, say, an intellectual debate or casual conversation. A restriction that requires the government to assess the substance of speech to decide whether a law has been broken is, by definition, content-based and warrants the Constitution’s strongest protection.
Furthermore, as PLF’s brief explains, the Second Circuit “only looked at one side of the First Amendment coin when it held that the UPL statute is content-neutral.”
The First Amendment protects listeners, too
First Amendment cases tend to focus on the speaker. But the Supreme Court has long recognized that freedom of speech protects the right to listen no less than the right to speak.
The listeners here are New Yorkers served with (often meritless) debt-collection complaints who cannot afford an attorney and are faced with navigating legal jargon on a state-provided form. When Rev. Udo-Okon tries to refer them to outside legal aid agencies, they land on long waiting lists and often don’t receive help until it’s too late.
“Planners and regulators have often thought to keep the public in the dark for their own good or for the good of others,” explains the brief, condemning this “babyproofing of the mind.”
“Limiting who they may speak with on these topics to a select few whom they cannot afford to pay is like blocking a drowning man from seizing a life ring because it wasn’t thrown by a licensed lifeguard.”
For the people in Rev. Udo-Okon’s community, the stakes couldn’t be more concrete. They don’t need expensive legal counsel—just assistance on a one-page form. The First Amendment protects their right to receive that.
