morning welcome to the ninth circuit we are here for our three days of argument today being the first we've got a fairly full towner on the other hand we'll make sure everyone has a chance to argue their i'm not going to rehash thing that you're honest and had an opportunity to read but i'd like to do is to focus the court's attention on what you believe to be the central feature of the issues before here before yourselves well she actually took the material the the responses and had them transposed from the questionnaire into the official forms but i don't think that was ever an issue  and that is part of course the problem with relying upon a northwest practice of law notion as a basis for finding a violation of hard luck problems very clear in subsection k that there is a difference to the bankruptcy law which in this case of it has in a number of different instances your yes but not in so far as the distribution of the cheerios which are general information they're not specifically designed for any particular individual there's never been i don't supreme court case that before the customer do that if when you say i actually filled out the form are you making a distinction between the introduction of the original information or the actual physical form that has to be  it's sent to her by the sky but there's no there's no substantive and there's no involvement with the substantive substance of information by discuss she simply a conduit for that information that the representation well it's it is not a function of the why should the customer pay for that if the customer doesn't feel as if the customer can do it all by himself or herself she can the customer can come to we the people and allow the people to be the conduit for the information just as there are many other services that are available in the country for people who don't want to do things themselves and who through a person who doesn't affect the substance of what they're doing is simply a vehicle for allowing the final product to be produced but the rule of so called supervising attorney is no difference between the general information that is contained in the materials that she distributes and the general information that is given by an attorney by the by the supervising attorney my question is quite do we have an attorney at all i think it's simply provides another basis for the customer to feel comfortable with having used the services of we the people it's not a matter of of getting to the customer any specific information in response question of aspirant by either saying that you couldn't answer it because it required the it would be in effect you're giving advice or would simply repeat something that the customer already knew or was was able to find out that there are some propositions which why at the heart of what it is that we're trying to focus on here the first of which is the difference between general information on the one hand and information that is specifically materials and preparing and drafting and crafting those materials and that wisely at the heart of a number of cases which have been cited and two cases which we've provided the court with additional supplemental that for so long as the materials that are provided do not focus specifically on in response to the facts and circumstances of an individual's situation for so long as they are just general materials that discuss  create the materials that are used she simply distributes them she repeats them free of charge to the customer who becomes her customer after having signed a contract to do so the preparation of those materials is done by a licensed attorney and they are not designed in any way shape or form to be responsive to any particulars that she circumstances of the other customer who comes into the store and who becomes a customer of the people were prepared spears simply following the language of the statute and if you are looks at the dictionary definition of the word you'll find that it can encompass a growing range of activities from the crafting on the one respondents having crafted the documents or in the case of oral communication that there was actually information specific to only specs in which the court are allied on an office practice of law is with respect to the distribution of the legal overview and with respect to that the judge made to findings one that was the unauthorized practice of law and two that was unfair  e and the reason he said is unfair and deceptive is because he said that the overview contained a number of important stakes first it didn't advise vendors at all that there was an option in chapter seven in chapter thirteen and it's a choice between  this critical and it's one that you have to think about and it's and it's really not surprising that it didn't the only service misquote offered was chapter seven so if she were to direct some of the chapter thirteen of the directing the out of her office to somebody else and he said and the judge found that that was very misleading and it's very problematic in fact that's not just theoretical in this very case at the initial creditor's committee meeting based on the findings of the misquote in this case the chapter seven  trustee looked at the documents said well you know your monthly income actually exceeds your monthly as you mostly face may be better off under chapter thirteen i'm going to ask you perhaps to refile she bankruptcy court may hear that there was a fifty services provided were unfair and deceptive and that the price exceeded the value of service are actually supported by the record the charge here was one hundred ninety nine dollars the evidence that was submitted in california and the only fee the franchise owner in california took was fifty dollars of the two hundred so there was actually evidence of fifty dollars was enough for the typing and even the evidence that misconduct produced at most so it was one hundred fifty and so by any could that those questions unanswered violent lay person who is not an attorney well as a as a as economic matter if it advertised go by the way you've got access to some lay person is going to answer your legal questions for you i doubt very much so it's been an attraction i mean grounds so i think you are the court would have the authority to reach that question and would you argue that question then please quit practicing law question it's our view that the that in the context of the commercial service so we're not dealing with someone who's just publishing a treatise out there but in a can in connection with the with the provision of a commercial service for a fee when in that context you give someone legal advice referred to the supervising attorney so when you look at an upright practice the last question your honor it's not the case it's not about simply giving someone a book it's telling them that they have access to a supervising attorney to answer general questions and when the judge asked her what do you mean  general questions she couldn't explain and in fact what she said was well in a bankruptcy context means pretty much any question as her testimony she provides more than just bankruptcy preparation services around and so here what you have is you don't have nearly i understand there are good practitioners that practice but why is the question of error related to whether there is practice because the only way the practice comes in here under the statute is under a finding ultimately it was on for  attention from the center of the state of california it appears that the house actually changed the practice because the overview that was issued there was entitled bankruptcy overview of chapter seven and chapter thirteen and apparently the provided they're provided both services you know again i guess it's the same question of which judge fletcher's question which was is that really conclusory term which really understood she certainly was given for example forms here and the workbook that she was given the the client tells you to cite that is not going to authorize practice but if what you do is you prepare for it and you do more from typing you are engaged and i think if what you are doing is telling people here's a legal advice believe they actually stand for the publication that would be gone off right back but but again i don't think the court should reach out on the side that issue it's really an issue of primarily idaho law and with respect to the issue of federal law i think here given the findings th not in isolation it was unfair deceptive because number one it contained the state and number two it was the basis to charge more than what the they were representing that they were charging for made a blanket holding the aftermath practice of law here the way come into cases because were errors in it and it was a basis for the way they were able to charge one hundred ninety nine dollars rather than you know fifty or sixty or ninety which is what the bankruptcy court held would have been a reasonable fee for even one fifty which was their view of the typing should let me ask you why you're trying to do that i think i know let me try this out on you understand i'm usually there's some tension between the authorization of the bankruptcy law to allow preparers to do this and the practicing haro who would like to do it themselves and the fact is you know they are the people these people are going into chapter seven bankruptcy or maybe chapter thirteen bankruptcy don't have much money to allow high priced lawyers to take a fair amount  that is unwise if you can get away with providing the same service more cheaply therefore we have the right person are you shying away from a holding on authorized practice of law is necessarily unfair try and and and look and if we interpret the statute to say any time state consider something an authorized practice of law that necessarily means that it's unfair and have invited the statute that would give to the state bar and of the state legislature a fair amount legal advice virtually the same disclaimer that appears in the materials scott  that if if it is used i think the issue of commercial speech doesn't raise its head here at all because we're talking about whether there are errors in the and whether matter what a bankruptcy protection preparer can do if if there's nothing else in the statute that says it can't be done it nevertheless cannot constitute the authorized practice of law that's one ten k i don't think i read it that way i think what it says is nothing in