Quick Answer: New York courts ruled that non-lawyers cannot legally advise people facing debt collection lawsuits, even for free. A nonprofit called Upsolve trained volunteers to help people fill out basic court response forms — and New York tried to shut them down. After the Second Circuit sided with the state in September 2025, Upsolve took the fight to the Supreme Court in February 2026, arguing that a conversation cannot be a crime.
Why I Know This Fight: I ran a credit counseling organization — Debt Counselors of America, later renamed Myvesta — from 1994 to 2006, growing it to 70 employees. I watched credit counselors walk a legal tightrope every single day over what constitutes “giving advice” versus “practicing law.” Those lines were drawn mostly by lawyers, mostly to protect lawyers. I know exactly what’s at stake in this case — and who really benefits when non-lawyers are shut out.
Most people who get sued for debt never respond. Not because they don’t care — but because they don’t know what to do and can’t afford a lawyer. A nonprofit called Upsolve tried to fix that by training volunteers to sit with people and explain a simple government form. New York said that’s a crime.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with New York in September 2025, ruling that the state’s unauthorized practice of law rules can be applied to Upsolve’s program. Now Upsolve and the Institute for Justice are asking the Supreme Court to settle the question: can a conversation be a crime?
What Upsolve Was Actually Doing
Let’s be clear about what Upsolve’s “Justice Advocates” program actually did, because the legal terminology in this case obscures something remarkably simple.
Upsolve trained non-lawyer volunteers to sit with low-income New Yorkers who had been sued by debt collectors. They helped those people:
The Daily Money Brief — Free, at 10 AM
Money you may be owed, scams to dodge, and the fine print decoded — the consumer money news that affects your wallet, every weekday.
- Understand what a debt collection lawsuit means
- Fill out New York’s standardized court answer form — a government-issued check-the-box document
- Understand basic legal terms like “statute of limitations”
- Decide whether and how to respond to the lawsuit
The volunteers made clear they were not lawyers. They were not representing anyone in court. They were having a conversation and helping someone understand a piece of paper.
New York said that was enough to constitute unauthorized practice of law.
Key Terms Defined
Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL): Providing legal services — advice, representation, or document preparation — without a law license. Each state defines this differently, and the definitions are routinely contested.
Justice Advocates: Upsolve’s term for trained non-lawyer volunteers who helped people respond to debt collection lawsuits.
Intermediate scrutiny: A legal standard courts apply to laws that restrict speech. The government must show the law is “substantially related” to an “important interest” — a lower bar than “strict scrutiny,” which applies to content-based speech restrictions.
Default judgment: What happens when a defendant doesn’t respond to a lawsuit. The court automatically rules for the plaintiff — in this case, the debt collector — without reviewing the merits of the claim.
The Numbers Behind This Case
Before getting into the legal fight, I want to show you why this matters at scale — because the stakes aren’t abstract.
That 90% default rate in New York isn’t ignorance. It’s a rational response to an impossible situation: you’ve been sued, you don’t understand the legal process, a lawyer is unaffordable, and doing nothing feels like the only option. The result is a wage garnishment, a frozen bank account, or a judgment that follows you for years. (Source: Pew Charitable Trusts)
A September 2025 Pew report found that debt collection lawsuits have surged back to pre-pandemic highs across the country. Black and Hispanic borrowers are 52% more likely to face a debt collection judgment than white and Asian borrowers. The people least equipped to navigate the legal system are the ones most likely to end up in it.
That’s the population Upsolve’s Justice Advocates were trying to reach.
Free Tool — Wage Garnishment Calculator: Worried about your paycheck being seized? The free Wage Garnishment Calculator shows exactly how much creditors can legally take in your state — and some states prohibit garnishment entirely. Calculate My Risk →
The Legal Fight, Step by Step
What the District Court Said (2022)
- Issued a preliminary injunction blocking NY from enforcing UPL rules against Upsolve
- Found that Upsolve’s one-on-one guidance is protected speech under the First Amendment
- Allowed the Justice Advocates program to operate while the case proceeded
What the Second Circuit Said (Sept. 2025)
- Vacated the injunction — NY can enforce its UPL rules against Upsolve
- Held the rules are “content neutral” — they regulate who can speak, not what is said
- Applied intermediate scrutiny instead of strict scrutiny
- Remanded to district court for further proceedings under the lower standard
The Second Circuit’s ruling in Upsolve, Inc. v. James, No. 22-1345 (2d Cir. Sept. 9, 2025), hinged on a technical but important distinction. If the law targets speech based on its content — what is being said — courts apply strict scrutiny, and the government usually loses. But if the law is “content neutral” — regulating who says it rather than what is said — courts apply the easier intermediate scrutiny test.
The Second Circuit said New York’s unauthorized practice of law rules are content neutral. They don’t care whether you’re giving advice about debt collection, tax law, or anything else. They only care whether you have a law license. Therefore: intermediate scrutiny. And under intermediate scrutiny, New York’s “substantial interest in protecting the public from incompetent legal representation” is enough.
As the Center for Law and Policy blog noted, the ruling was a significant setback — not just for Upsolve, but for the broader access-to-justice movement that relies on non-lawyer advocates to fill gaps that the legal profession hasn’t and won’t fill.
Now It’s Going to the Supreme Court
On February 11, 2026, Upsolve and the Institute for Justice filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The argument: a conversation cannot be a crime.
The petition challenges whether the First Amendment allows states to require an expensive, time-consuming professional license before a person can have a discussion about legal topics — even when the discussion is free, one-on-one, and clearly not legal representation.
“The First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to outlaw discussion of entire topics by requiring speakers to first obtain an expensive, time-consuming license.”— Institute for Justice, SCOTUS Petition (Feb. 2026)
Who These Restrictions Really Protect
Here’s where I’m going to say something that might be uncomfortable.
Unauthorized practice of law rules are almost always framed as consumer protection — protecting people from incompetent advice. And in some contexts, that’s legitimate. Surgery requires a medical license. You don’t want an untrained stranger performing your appendectomy.
But helping someone check the right box on a government form to respond to a debt collection lawsuit? That’s not surgery.
I ran a credit counseling organization for over a decade. I watched us navigate these exact restrictions constantly. We couldn’t “give legal advice.” We couldn’t tell someone with certainty what a particular law meant. But the people who came to us didn’t need a lawyer — they needed someone to sit with them, explain plain English, and help them take the next step. In many cases, the answer that would have helped them most was the one we were legally prohibited from giving.
Who Benefits from These Rules? Not primarily the consumers these laws claim to protect. The debt collection industry benefits when defendants don’t respond — they get automatic default judgments. And the legal profession benefits from a monopoly on advice-giving. The people who get hurt are the ones who can’t afford $300/hour and don’t know what to do with a piece of paper that says they’re being sued.
I’m not saying the legal profession is conspiring against the poor. But I am saying that UPL rules, as applied to cases like Upsolve’s, often protect lawyer guild interests more than they protect consumers. Notably, in the Second Circuit case, the state was backed by civil legal services organizations — groups that provide free legal aid — who worried a win for Upsolve would undermine their own models. Even the people on the right side of this fight disagreed about the right answer.
The Pro Bono Institute called the Second Circuit ruling “a setback for Justice Advocates” — acknowledging that the case sits at an uncomfortable intersection between protecting legal standards and expanding access to justice.
What This Means If You’re Being Sued for Debt Right Now
Whether the Supreme Court takes the Upsolve case or not, the legal landscape for getting free help with debt collection lawsuits is murky right now. Here’s what matters for you:
- Always respond to a debt collection lawsuit. A non-response leads to a default judgment. The debt collector wins automatically. You lose wage garnishment protection. Respond by the deadline on your summons.
- You can respond yourself. Many states, including New York, have standardized forms. You don’t need a lawyer to fill out a form. What you need is to understand the form.
- Check the statute of limitations. Many old debts are time-barred. If the debt is past the statute of limitations in your state, that’s a valid defense — and you don’t need a lawyer to raise it.
- Upsolve’s bankruptcy tool is still available. While the Justice Advocates program is in legal limbo, Upsolve’s core service — helping people file Chapter 7 bankruptcy — has helped over 300,000 people discharge more than $700 million in debt for free.
- Know your options before you panic. Take my Find Your Path quiz to understand whether bankruptcy, settlement, or another approach is right for your situation.
The Bottom Line
New York’s courts ruled that Upsolve’s trained volunteers cannot legally help people fill out basic debt lawsuit response forms. The Second Circuit found the state’s unauthorized practice of law rules are content-neutral and subject to a lower First Amendment standard. Upsolve has now asked the Supreme Court to decide whether that’s constitutional. While that fight plays out, millions of Americans will keep getting sued for debt, failing to respond, and losing automatically — not because they don’t have a case, but because no one could legally sit with them and explain the form. That’s not consumer protection. That’s a gap in the system that the legal profession has been unable and unwilling to fill.
Free Tool — I'm Being Sued for Debt Guide: Being sued by a creditor or debt collector? The free I'm Being Sued Guide gives you a personalized action plan — deadlines, defenses, and options based on your state. Most states require a response within 20–30 days. Get My Action Plan →
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Upsolve?
Upsolve is a nonprofit that provides free legal resources to low-income Americans dealing with debt. Its core tool helps people file Chapter 7 bankruptcy without hiring a lawyer. It also launched a “Justice Advocates” program training non-lawyers to help New Yorkers respond to debt collection lawsuits — which became the subject of a major First Amendment legal battle with the state of New York.
What did the Second Circuit rule in the Upsolve case?
In September 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction that had allowed Upsolve’s Justice Advocates program to operate. The court held that New York’s unauthorized practice of law statutes are content-neutral, meaning only “intermediate scrutiny” — a lower standard — applies to the First Amendment analysis. The case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings under that standard. (Upsolve, Inc. v. James, No. 22-1345, 2d Cir. 2025)
What is the Upsolve Supreme Court petition about?
Upsolve, partnered with the Institute for Justice, filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court in February 2026. The central argument: the First Amendment protects the right to have a conversation about legal topics without a law license, especially when that conversation is clearly not legal representation. The petition frames the issue as whether “a conversation can be a crime.” The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take the case.
Can a non-lawyer help me respond to a debt collection lawsuit?
It depends on the state and what kind of help you’re getting. Filling out standardized court forms is generally not considered practicing law in most jurisdictions. Having a one-on-one conversation about your options is also not clearly regulated in many states. What is prohibited is appearing in court on someone’s behalf, giving formal legal advice for compensation, or drafting legal documents as a professional service. If you need help, look for nonprofit legal aid organizations in your area, or use Upsolve’s free resources directly at Upsolve.org.
What should I do if I’m sued for a debt I can’t pay?
The single most important thing: respond before the deadline. Most summonses give you 20–30 days. A non-response triggers an automatic default judgment — the debt collector wins without the court ever reviewing the merit of their claim. Use the standardized answer form for your state, raise any defenses you have (expired statute of limitations, wrong amount, not your debt), and take my Find Your Path quiz to see whether bankruptcy or another option makes sense for your overall situation. Ignoring a lawsuit is the one thing guaranteed to make it worse.
Source: Bloomberg Law — NY Non-Lawyer Practice Rules Revived by Second Circuit
Dealing With Debt? Understanding your options is the first step. See how all your debt relief options compare — including ones most sites won’t tell you about. The Find Your Path quiz gives a recommendation based on your actual numbers, and the Scam-O-Meter checks any company’s complaint history before you sign. Federal Reserve research shows bankruptcy filers recover faster than those who don’t file.
