Given that significant interest, the compelled speech of
section 527 is a reasonable burden. Hersh argues that many of the paragraphs within the required statement provide false or misleading information.
But in an area of law as intricate as bankruptcy, a generalized statement may often require further explanation by a client's attorney.
Nothing in
section 527 prevents this. Further, the section itself provides that the statement may be altered, so long as the content is “substantially similar,” and that the statements need only be provided “to the extent applicable.”
11 U.S.C. § 527(b). This leaves the bankruptcy attorney with sufficient control of the distribution of the messages of the statement to avoid any undue burden.
See Fargo Women's Health Org. v. Schafer, 18 F.3d 526, 532–34 (8th Cir.1994) (upholding provision requiring doctors to provide information and where physicians may comment on or dissociate themselves from the materials.) Finally, unlike in
Riley, the provision neither acts as a barrier inhibiting the ability of a potential client to seek relief nor disproportionately impacts the ability of certain attorneys to serve their clients. The factual, viewpoint-neutral statement provides a sufficiently benign and narrow means of ensuring that clients are aware of certain general information regarding bankruptcy. Accordingly, the Court grants the Government's motion to dismiss Hersh's claim that
11 U.S.C. § 527 violates the First Amendment.