Bankruptcy Overview merely summarized the statute, creating the possibility of misinterpretation. See In re Doser, 412 F.3d at 1065. Tomlinson stated that she did not know what was in the statute. She relied on both the company’s Workbook and Bankruptcy Overview as the sole sources of interpretation of what she should include in her bankruptcy petition. She further relied on the bankruptcy petition preparer’s application of the information from the Workbook to the bankruptcy forms. Hr’g Tr. 62-64, Apr. 11, 2005. This application of the information provided in the Workbook to her forms clearly constitutes providing specific legal advice to an individual, which violates both the code and New York’s prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law. In re Gaftick, 333 B.R. at 186 (<HOLDING>); Sussman v. Grado, 192 Misc.2d at 633, 746
holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the first amendment holding that the unauthorized practice of law constitutes violation of code holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice