Access to justice has always been a cornerstone of a fair and democratic society. However, millions of people across the United States are unable to afford legal representation, especially when facing issues like debt collection, eviction, or family disputes. This gap has given rise to a growing debate: Who should be allowed to give legal advice?
One organization at the center of this debate is Upsolve, a nonprofit dedicated to helping low-income individuals navigate debt-related legal challenges. Recent court rulings involving Upsolve have sparked nationwide conversations about free speech, consumer protection, and the boundaries of legal practice.
Background: What is Upsolve?
Founded in 2016, Upsolve is a nonprofit organization focused on helping low-income Americans file for bankruptcy without hiring an attorney. Over time, its mission expanded to include training non-lawyers—such as social workers, community advocates, and volunteers—to provide limited legal guidance on debt collection cases.
The core idea is simple:
If people cannot afford lawyers, trained community members should help them understand their rights and take necessary steps—without replacing actual legal representation.
This model is particularly relevant because over 70% of debt collection defendants in the U.S. go to court without a lawyer, often resulting in default judgments that spiral into wage garnishments and financial ruin.
The Legal Challenge: Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)
The key legal issue here revolves around Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) rules.
Every U.S. state has laws that restrict non-lawyers from giving legal advice. These rules aim to protect consumers from unqualified advice that could harm their cases. However, they also limit access to affordable legal help, particularly for those who cannot afford attorneys.
Upsolve challenged these restrictions in New York, arguing that its model should be protected under the First Amendment right to free speech. The nonprofit claimed that when trained non-lawyers give simple, factual legal information, it is more akin to free speech than the formal practice of law.
Initial Victory for Upsolve
In 2022, a federal district court sided with Upsolve, granting a preliminary injunction that allowed the nonprofit to train and deploy non-lawyer “justice advocates.”
Judge Paul A. Crotty held that prohibiting Upsolve’s volunteers from giving free, basic legal advice violated their First Amendment rights.
He compared it to community members sharing knowledge and helping others, emphasizing that Upsolve’s model included strict safeguards, such as training and disclaimers clarifying that the volunteers were not attorneys.
This ruling was hailed as a victory for access to justice, inspiring similar initiatives in other states.
The Reversal: Appeals Court Overturns the Decision
In September 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision.
The appeals court concluded that:
UPL rules regulate conduct, not speech.
Giving legal advice isn’t just sharing ideas; it’s performing a service with potential consequences.States have a compelling interest in protecting the public from incorrect or harmful advice.
The First Amendment does not grant a blanket right for non-lawyers to practice law, even if they are well-meaning volunteers.
This ruling dealt a major blow to Upsolve’s mission, creating uncertainty for similar access-to-justice projects nationwide. Upsolve has announced plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a landmark case.
Implications of the Ruling
The decision has far-reaching implications, both legally and socially.
1. For Access to Justice
Millions of low-income individuals will continue to face legal challenges without meaningful guidance.
Nonprofits may be discouraged from experimenting with community-based solutions.
2. For the Legal Profession
Lawyers retain exclusive rights to provide legal advice, reinforcing traditional regulatory frameworks.
Critics argue this protects attorneys’ economic interests rather than public welfare.
3. For Free Speech Jurisprudence
The case highlights a growing tension between free speech rights and professional regulation.
A Supreme Court ruling could set a precedent affecting other professions, such as healthcare and financial services.
The Bigger Picture: Rethinking Legal Access
This case underscores a fundamental question:
How can the legal system balance consumer protection with the urgent need for affordable, accessible legal help?
Some proposed solutions include:
Regulatory sandboxes: Allowing controlled experiments where non-lawyers can offer limited services under strict oversight.
Licensed legal paraprofessionals: Creating new professional categories similar to nurse practitioners in healthcare.
Technology-driven platforms: Leveraging AI and online tools to provide reliable, low-cost legal information.
Conclusion
The Upsolve case is more than just a courtroom battle—it’s a reflection of the deep inequalities in the U.S. legal system.
If left unresolved, millions will continue to navigate complex legal problems alone, facing dire consequences.
However, if reforms are implemented thoughtfully, there is a path forward where legal help is both safe and accessible.
As Upsolve prepares to take its fight to the Supreme Court, the outcome could reshape the boundaries of legal practice for decades to come.