It's official. We're now living under The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention, Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). Although we knew it was coming, many bankruptcy practitioners still have questions about exactly what this will mean for them and their practices. One aspect of the BAPCPA that's caused a great deal of consternation among bankruptcy practitioners is the creation of a new category of "debt relief agencies." The new 11 U.S.C. ? 101(12A) defines a "debt relief agency" as "any person who provides any bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for the payment of money or other valuable consideration[.]" Most have thought that a basic reading of the statute includes attorneys, and thus imposes a new set of regulations on the practice of law under the new 11 U.S.C. ?? 526-528. Assuming bankruptcy attorneys who represent debtors fall under the definition of a "debt relief agency," the BAPCPA would impose additional requirements and liabilities on them. Many practitioners have already either ceased representing individuals or have begun charging dramatically higher fees to represent consumer debtors because of the potential land mines in the new law. However, one bankruptcy court has already fired the opening salvo on the new law and declared that members of its bar are not "debt relief agencies." Chief Judge Lamar W. Davis, Jr., of the Southern District of Georgia issued an order on Monday October 17 that "attorneys regularly admitted to the Bar of this Court and those admitted pro hac vice are not covered by the provisions of the Code regulating debt relief agencies, including without limitation ?? 101(12A), (4A), 526, 527 and 528, and are excused from compliance with any of those requirements or provisions, so long as their activities fall within the scope of the practice of law and do not constitute a separate commercial enterprise." Opinion at 9. The Court decried the confusion and apprehension that had gripped many practitioners because of their concerns about complying with the "debt relief agency" provisions, writing that, "This is a burden which should not be borne by the Bar needlessly or merely out of an abundance of caution. It should and must be borne by the Bar if that is the result Congress mandated. Anything less than the highest level of professional conduct is not tolerable by this Court. Equally intolerable is the uncertainty in the minds of the Bar as to their duty under this new statute." In reaching its ultimate decision , the Court reasoned that the law (? 101(12A)) does not refer specifically to "attorneys" or "lawyers," and that in fact the term "attorney" is defined in ? 101(4) without reference to any of the "debt relief agency" provisions. Thus, the Court held, it is doubtful that Congress intended to pre-empt state regulation of attorneys using such ambiguous language. It will be interesting to see whether more courts adopt this stance. The full Order is available at the Court's website: http://www.gasb.uscourts.gov/usbc/LWDOrder.pdf Mac